>t 


ELEMENTS    OF    SOCIALISM 


THE  MACMILLAN  COMPANY 

NEW  YORK   •    BOSTON   •    CHICAGO 
DALLAS   •    SAN   FRANCISCO 

MACMILLAN  &  CO.,  LIMITED 

LONDON  •    BOMBAY  •    CALCUTTA 
MELBOURNE 

THE  MACMILLAN  CO.  OF  CANADA,  LTD. 

TORONTO 


Elements  of  Socialism 


A  TEXT-BOOK 


BY 

JOHN    SPARGO 

AUTHOR   OF   "  KARL  MARX,  HIS  LIFE  AND  WORK,"   "  SOCIALISM,  A 

SUMMARY  AND  INTERPRETATION  OF   SOCIALIST 

PRINCIPLES,"   ETC.,  ETC. 

AND 

GEORGE    LOUIS   ARNER,  PH.D. 

LATE  INSTRUCTOR  IN  ECONOMICS  IN  DARTMOUTH  COLLEGE 


COPYRIGHT,  1912 
BY  THE  MACMILLAN   COMPANY 


Set  up  and  electrotyped.    Published  February,  1912 


CONTENTS 


PART  I 

SOCIALISM  AS  A  CRITICISM 

CHAPTER 

PAGE 

I. 

INTRODUCTION         .        .        .        .        . 

.      3 

II. 

CAPITALIST  SOCIETY        

.     7 

III. 

PLANLESS  PRODUCTION    

.    19 

IV. 

30 

V. 

LEISURE  AND  LUXURY    ...... 

.    44 

VI. 

INDIVIDUAL  AND  SOCIAL  RESPONSIBILITY       .        . 

.    63 

PART  II 

SOCIALIST  THEORY 

VII. 

INTRODUCTORY        

.    61 

VIII. 

SOCIAL  EVOLUTION          

.    65 

IX. 

THE  ECONOMIC  INTERPRETATION  OF  HISTORY 

.    76 

X. 

INDUSTRIAL  EVOLUTION           

.    91 

XI. 

THE  CLASS  STRUGGLE  THEORY      .... 

.  100 

XII. 

VALUE  AND  PRICE          

.  116 

XIII. 

SURPLUS-VALUE      

.  141 

XIV. 

THE  LAW  OF  CONCENTRATION       .... 

.  157 

XV. 

MONOPOLIES  AND  TRUSTS       ..... 

168 

PART  III 

THE  SOCIALIST  IDEAL 

XVI. 

THE  UTOPIAN  SOCIALIST  IDEAL      .... 

.  187 

XVII. 

THE  IDEALS  OF  MODERN  SOCIALISM      .        .        . 

.  201 

XVIII. 

THE  SOCIALIST  STATE  —  POLITICAL         ... 

.  212 

XIX. 

THE  SOCIALIST  STATE  —  ECONOMIC         ... 

.  224 

XX. 

SOCIALISM  AND  THE  FAMILY           .... 

.  240 

iii 

2029218 


iv  CONTENTS 

PART  IV 


CHAPTER  PAGE 

XXI.    THE  RISE  AND  GROWTH  OP  MODERN  SOCIALISM  .        .  255 

XXII.    THE  NATIONAL  SOCIALIST  MOVEMENTS          .        .        .  266 

(1)  Germany 266 

(2)  France 275 

(3)  Austria 279 

(4)  Belgium 281 

(5)  Italy 283 

(6)  Great  Britain 285 

(7)  The  United  States 292 

(8)  Russia 301 

(9)  Finland 305 

(10)  The  Scandinavian  Countries  ....  306 

(11)  Holland 308 

(12)  Switzerland  309 

(13)  Spain 310 

(14)  Poland  310 

(15)  Hungary 311 

(16)  Other  Countries 312 


PART  V 

POLICY  AND  PROGRAM 

XXIII.  SOCIALISM  AND  SOCIAL  REFORM 317 

XXIV.  THE  REFORM  PROGRAM  OF  SOCIALISM   ....  337 
XXV.    SOME  OBJECTIONS  TO  SOCIALISM  ....  354 


ERRATUM 

Page  144,  line  14,  for  Buying  cheap  and  selling  dear  is 
therefore  an  explanation"  read  "Buying  cheap  and  selling 
dear  is  therefore  no  explanation." 


IV 


CONTENTS 


PART  IV 
THE  SOCIALIST  MOVEMENT 

CHAPTER  PAGE 

XXI.    THE  RISE  AND  GROWTH  OF  MODERN  SOCIALISM  .        .  255 

XXII.    THE  NATIONAL  SOCIALIST  MOVEMENTS          .        .        .  266 

(1)  Germany 266 

(2)  France 275 

(3)  Austria 279 

(4)  Belgium 281 

(5)  Italy 283 

(6)  Great  Britain 285 

"•     »T_i*«j  a+ofM  .  292 


PART  V 

POLICY  AND  PROGRAM 

XXIII.  SOCIALISM  AND  SOCIAL  REFORM     . 

XXIV.  THE  REFORM  PROGRAM  OF  SOCIALISM   . 
XXV.    SOME  OBJECTIONS  TO  SOCIALISM     . 


317 
337 
354 


PART  I 

SOCIALISM  AS   CRITICISM 


CHAPTER  I 

INTRODUCTION 

Beginning  of  the  Socialist  movement:  In  the  early  part 
of  the  nineteenth  century,  that  splendid  century  of  progress 
in  science  and  invention,  of  capitalistic  expansion,  philo- 
sophic individualism,  and  economic  laissez  faire,  arose  the 
deep-seated  and  far-reaching  popular  movement  which  we 
call  Socialism.  Like  every  other  great  movement  in  history, 
it  was  at  first  weak  and  insignificant.  It  consisted  of  little 
more  than  a  vague  groping  for  a  way  of  escape  from  the  evils 
of  the  time.  Its  adherents  were  for  the  most  part  poor  men 
without  influence,  victims  of  poverty  and  oppression,  led 
by  a  few  idealists.  Thus,  it  was  not  essentially  different 
from  the  movements  of  protest  which  in  all  ages  have  chal- 
lenged and  assailed  recognized  injustice. 

But  the  new  movement  soon  passed  out  of  this  stage  of 
its  development,  and  became  a  conscious,  disciplined  force 
with  its  positive  and  negative  sides  well  defined.  The  rapidly 
growing  industrial  system  gave  a  great  impetus  to  science. 
The  principle  of  universal  evolution  and  the  methods  of 
science  profoundly  influenced  every  department  of  human 
thought  and  activity  in  the  leading  countries  of  the  world. 
Under  that  influence  Socialism  took  shape  as  a  powerful 
force  aiming  at  the  destruction  of  an  economic  system  in 
which  a  few  are  enabled  to  appropriate  most  of  the  advan- 
tages of  industrial  effort  and  progress,  and  at  the  develop- 
ment of  a  new  economic  system  based  upon  cooperation, 
democracy  and  justice,  and  insuring  equality  of  opportunity 
to  all. 

Importance  of  the  movement:  In  spite  of  ridicule,  ostra- 
cism and  bitter  persecution  the  Socialist  movement  has  made 
phenomenal  progress.  Its  representatives  are  to  be  found 
in  the  parliaments  of  all  the  leading  nations.  The  political 
strength  of  the  movement  is  indicated  by  the  fact  that  nearly 

3 


4  ELEMENTS   OF  SOCIALISM 

ten  million  votes  are  cast  for  its  parliamentary  representa- 
tives throughout  the  world.  Of  course,  the  movement  is 
much  stronger  numerically  than  even  these  figures  indicate. 
Making  due  allowance  for  the  fact  that  in  most  countries 
women  do  not  enjoy  the  parliamentary  franchise,  and  the 
further  fact  that  in  many  countries  a  large  part  of  the  adult 
male  population  is  also  excluded  from  the  right  of  the  franchise 
by  property  and  other  restrictive  qualifications,  it  is  probably 
a  conservative  estimate  that  forty  million  adults  are  Social- 
ists and  would  vote  for  Socialist  representatives  if  they  could. 

Obviously,  such  a  movement  demands  and  deserves 
serious  and  candid  investigation  and  study.  To  be  effec- 
tively and  efficiently  supported  if  good  and  wise  it  must  be 
understood.  To  be  effectively  and  efficiently  opposed  if  evil 
and  unwise  it  must  likewise  be  understood.  An  understand- 
ing of  the  principles  of  Socialism,  of  the  aims  and  methods 
of  the  movement,  has  become  an  essential  condition  of 
intelligent  citizenship.  The  wilful  and  ignorant  misrepre- 
sentation of  Socialism  in  which  many  of  its  opponents  have 
indulged  is  not  only  powerless  to  check  the  progress  of  the 
movement,  but  extremely  dangerous.  Nothing  is  more 
dangerous  in  a  democracy  than  appealing  to  prejudice  in 
the  discussion  of  matters  of  this  kind. 

Difficulties  of  definition:  It  is  not  an  easy  matter  to 
formulate  a  satisfactory  definition  of  Socialism.  The  task 
has  been  attempted  by  numerous  writers,  friendly  and  other- 
wise. That  the  definitions  of  Socialism  by  its  advocates 
differ  considerably  from  each  other  has  been  made  the  basis 
of  much  rather  unreasonable  criticism.  A  definition  is 
simply  a  brief  explanation  of  the  thing  defined.  When  the 
thing  to  be  defined  is  at  once  a  comprehensive  criticism 
of  society,  a  philosophy  interpreting  the  social  conditions 
and  institutions  criticised,  a  forecast  of  the  future  de- 
velopment of  society,  and  a  movement  with  a  program 
based  upon  these  and  intended  to  remove  the  evils  com- 
plained of  and  to  bring  about  the  social  ideal  forecasted, 
definition  is  necessarily  very  difficult  and  hazardous. 

That  the  definition  of  one  man  should  over-emphasize 
the  critical  aspect  of  Socialism,  that  of  another  its  philosophi- 
cal basis,  that  of  a  third  its  forecast  and  that  of  yet  another 
its  program  is  inevitable.  The  cheap  sneer  that  there  are 


INTRODUCTION  5 

"fifty-seven  varieties  of  Socialism"  is  an  exceedingly  petty 
criticism.  We  must  bear  in  mind  that  difference  in  defini- 
tions is  by  no  means  the  same  thing  as  contradiction.  It 
is  safe  to  say  that  the  recognized  leaders  of  Socialist  thought 
have  defined  Socialism  with  quite  as  large  a  degree  of  unan- 
imity and  as  small  a  degree  of  antagonism  as  have  been  shown 
by  the  recognized  leaders  of  any  department  of  thought, 
if  we  omit  those  relating  to  and  conditioned  by  the  exact 
sciences. 

Provisional  definition:  As  we  have  already  intimated, 
Socialism  may  be  conveniently  divided  into  four  parts. 
No  study  of  Socialism  can  be  satisfactory,  no  definition  of 
it  can  be  complete,  which  does  not  consider  it  as  (1)  a  critic 
cism  of  existing  society;  (2)  a  philosophy  of  social  evolution; 
(3)  a  social  forecast  or  ideal;  (4)  a  movement  for  the  attain- 
ment of  the  ideal. 

As  a  provisional  definition,  then,  we  may  accept  the 
following:  Socialism  is  a  criticism  of  existing  society  which 
attributes  most  of  the  poverty,  vice,  crime  anoTbtner  social 
evils  of  today  to  the  fact  that,  through  the  private  or  class 
ownership  of  the  social  forces  of  production  and  exchange, 
the  actual  producers  of  wealth  are  exploited  by  a  class  of 
non-producers;  a  theory  of  social  evolution  according  to 
which  the  rate  and  direction  of  social  evolution  are  mainly 
determined  by  the  development  of  the  economic  factors  of 
production,  distribution  and  exchange;  a  social  forecast 
that  the  next  epoch  in  the  evolution  of  society"  will  tie  ~cHs- 
tinguished  by  the  social  ownership  and  control  of  the  prin- 
cipal agencies  of  production  and  exchange,  and  by  an 
equalization  of  opportunity  as  a  result  of  this  socialization; 
a  movement,  primarily  consisting  of  members  of  the  wealth- 
producing  class,  which  seeks  to  control  all  the  powers  of  the 
State  and  to  bring  about  the  collective  ownership  and  con- 
trol of  the  principal  means  of  production  and  exchange, 
in  order  that  poverty,  class  antagonisms,  vice  and  other  ill 
results  of  the  existing  social  system  may  be  abolished,  and 
that  a  new  and  better  social  system  may  be  attained. 


ELEMENTS   OF   SOCIALISM 


SUMMARY 

1.  Socialism  arose  as  a  movement  of  protest,  and  through  the  accept- 
ance of  the  principle  of  evolution  became  a  conscious,  disciplined  force 
with  a  definite  aim. 

2.  Politically,  Socialism  is  represented  by  a  great  international  party 
with  nearly  10,000,000  voters  and  40,000,000  adult  sympathizers. 

3.  Socialism  must  be  considered  as  a  criticism  of  existing  society, 
as  a  philosophy  of  social  evolution,  as  a  social  forecast  or  ideal,  and  as 
a  movement  for  the  attainment  of  the  ideal. 


QUESTIONS 

1.  In  what  way  has  science  influenced  the  character  of  Socialism? 

2.  What  is  the  chief  aim  of  the  Socialist  movement? 

3.  Give  a  provisional  definition  of  Socialism. 


CHAPTER  II 

CAPITALIST  SOCIETY 

I 

Point  of  view  in  Socialist  criticism:  The  Socialist  criti- 
cism of  society  is  essentially  constructive  and  impersonal. 
This  is  not  always  apparent  to  the  casual  reader  of,  or 
listener  to  a  popular  presentation  of  Socialism,  but  if  the 
speaker  or  writer  is  really  representative  of  Socialism  at  its 
best  his  criticisms  of  institutions  are  directed  toward  the 
determining  economic  conditions  and  their  consequences, 
and  his  criticism  of  men  has  for  its  purpose  the  desire  to 
give  concrete  examples  of  types  and  classes  as  they  are 
affected  by  economic  conditions.  Karl  Marx  makes  this 
perfectly  clear  in  the  preface  to  the  first  volume  of  Capital.1 

This  criticism,  moreover,  has  always  the  transformation  of 
society  through  changes  in  the  basic  economic  conditions 
as  its  motive.  This  assumption  of  the  fundamental  economic 
basis  of  society  and  social  institutions  is  essential  to  Social- 
ism. As  we  shall  see  later  in  our  study,  psychological  and 
other  factors  in  social  evolution  are  not  excluded.  They 
are  simply  regarded  as  subordinate  to  the  economic  factors. 

Socialism  and  decadent  institutions:  Socialists  do  not 
devote  much  attention  to  the  criticism  of  unimportant  or 
decadent  institutions.  Attempts  to  direct  Socialist  attacks 
to  the  surviving  remnants  of  feudal  society  have  largely 

"I  paint  the  capitalist  and  landlord  in  no  sense  coukur  de  rose. 
But  here  individuals  are  dealt  with  only  in  so  far  as  they  are  the  person- 
ifications of  economic  categories,  embodiments  of  particular  class- 
relations  and  class-interests.  My  standpoint,  from  which  the  evolu- 
tion of  the  economic  formation  of  society  is  viewed  as  a  process  of 
natural  history,  can  less  than  any  other  make  the  individual  responsible 
for  relations  whose  creature  he  socially  remains,  however  much  he  may 
subjectively  raise  himself  above  them." — Karl  Marx,  Capital,  vol.  I, 
p.  15,  American  edition. 

7 


8  ELEMENTS   OF  SOCIALISM 

failed  for  the  reason  that  the  Socialists  are  interested  in 
and  mainly  concerned  with  the  vital  power  of  Capitalism. 
Both  in  Germany  and  England,  for  example,  all  efforts  to 
induce  the  Socialists  to  direct  special  attacks  against  the 
institution  of  monarchy  have  failed.  At  the  International 
Socialist  Congress  at  Amsterdam,  in  1904,  M.  Jean  Jaures, 
the  French  Socialist  leader,  boasted  of  the  fact  that  France 
had  long  been  a  republic  and  rebuked  the  German  Social 
Democrats  for  acquiescing  in  the  continuance  of  the  mon- 
archy. He  was  replied  to  by  Herr  Bebel  to  the  effect  that, 
while  the  German  Social  Democrats  desired  a  republic  they 
would  not  make  it  a  special  issue,  because  it  was  not  worth 
while.  So  long  as  the  capitalist  state  exists,  whether  its  form 
be  monarchical  or  republican,  its  power  will  be  used  to 
defend  the  privileges  and  powers  of  the  capitalist  class. 
Therefore,  the  abolition  of  the  capitalist  system  itself  is  the 
really  important  goal. 

The  capitalist  class:  With  the  final  overthrow  of  feudal- 
ism and  the  aristocracy  of  birth  by  the  victorious  middle 
class  at  the  time  of  the  French  Revolution  the  foundation 
was  already  laid  for  a  new  aristocracy  of  wealth.  The  inven- 
tion of  power  machinery  and  the  consequent  concentration 
of  industry  in  factories,  made  individual  ownership  of  the 
instruments  of  production  by  the  workers  themselves  an 
impossibility.  -Those  producers  who  were  first  to  take 
advantage  of  the'  new  methods,  or  who  'had  the  greatest 
advantages  in  such  important  matters  as  power,  markets, 
labor  supply  or  raw  materials,  soon  became  the  sole  owners 
of  industry.  Thus  was  established  a  new  class  whose  mem- 
bers, like  the  great  land-owners,  have  been  able  to  draw  a 
perpetual  income  from  industry,  even  when  performing  no 
directive  labor. 

It  is  true  that  many  members  of  this  class  perform  a 
high  grade  of  labor,  as  managers,  for  which  they  are  liberally 
paid,  but  the  greater  part  of  their  income  is  the  direct  or 
indirect  result  of  ownership  of  the  means  of  production  and 
is  not  in  any  sense  in  proportion  either  to  need  or  to  ability. 
Those  persons,  then,  whose  income  is  wholly  or  principally 
derived  from  the  labor  of  others  as  a  result  of  their  ownership 
of  the  means  of  production  constitute  what  the  Socialist 
knows  as  the  Capitalist  Class. 


CAPITALIST  SOCIETY  9 

The  proletariat:  The  concentration  of  the  ownership  of 
the  means  of  production,  and  the  growth  of  cities  and  factory 
towns,  transformed  the  journeyman  of  handicraft  industry 
and  the  peasant  of  feudalism  into  the  propertyless  wage- 
worker  of  modern  industry.  With  no  control  over  his  means 
of  livelihood,  he  is  obliged  to  accept  the  current  rate  of 
wages  for  the  kind  of  labor  he  performs,  pay  for  the  goods 
he  consumes  a  price  which  is  set  by  conditions  over  which 
he  has  no  control,  and  live  wherever  the  capitalist  entre- 
preneur may  locate  his  factory. 

In  the  early  days  of  the  capitalist  system,  class  lines 
were  loosely  drawn  and  it  was  possible  for  a  man  of  ability 
to  rise  from  the  working  class  to  the  capitalist  class.  But 
as  the  system  becomes  more  rigid  and  more  complex  the 
passing  of  a  proletarian  into  the  capitalist  class  becomes  all 
but  impossible.  He  may  leave  his  class  in  spirit  and  become 
a  retainer  of  the  capitalist  class,  but  generally,  and  unless 
specially  favored,  he  remains  in  fact  a  proletarian. 

Who  constitute  the  proletariat?  The  proletariat  properly 
includes  not  only  factory  workers  and  day  laborers,  but  clerks 
in  business  houses  and  salesmen  in  mercantile  establish- 
ments. The  farm  laborer  in  Europe  is  still  a  feudal  peasant 
to  a  very  large  extent,  but  in  America,  so  far  as  he  is  not  the 
son  or  heir  of  a  middle-class  farmer,  the  farm  laborer  is 
essentially  a  proletarian.  The  word  "proletariat"  is  of  Ro- 
man origin.  In  ancient  Rome  it  was  applied  to  a  large  class 
of  free  citizens  without  property  or  certain  means  of  exis- 
tence. The  modern  technical  meaning  of  the  word  connotes 
the  claslTbf  workers  who  do  not  own  the  tools  and  imple- 
ments of  their  calling,  the  wage-working  class  in  general. 
In  common  usage,  however,  the  word  is  used  to  describe 
the^entire  class  of  workers  who  own  no  property. 

Wage  slavery:  Socialists  frequently  speak  of  the  condi- 
tion of  the  proletariat  under  Capitalism  as  "Wage  Slavery." 
This  term  is  sometimes  objected  to  on  the  ground  that  the 
worker  is  free  to  give  up  his  job  and  move  from  place  to 
place  at  will.  He  is  thus  in  a  very  different  position  from 
that  of  the  chattel  slave  of  antiquity,  or  even  that  of  the 
feudal  serf. 

The  Socialist  replies  that  while  the  worker  is  theoretically 
free  he  is  in  fact  enslaved;  that  while  the  law  does  not 


10  ELEMENTS   OF   SOCIALISM 

enforce  wage  slavery,  it  is  enforced  by  conditions  more 
effectually  coercive  than  statutes  could  be.  There  is  always 
an  army  of  unemployed  ready  to  take  the  jobs  that  the 
discontented  may  vacate,  and  the  choice  that  confronts  the 
worker  is  usually  a  choice  between  holding  his  job  or  falling 
to  poverty  or  even  pauperism.  If  he  moves  from  one  factory 
to  another,  he  only  changes  masters,  still  working  under  the 
same  general  conditions.  The  average  worker  cannot  hope 
to  find  relief  in  private  business  enterprises.  The  risk  is  too 
precarious,  for  the  majority  of  small  business  enterprises 
fail. 

Except  in  rare  cases,  agricultural  employment  offers  no 
way  of  escape  to  the  factory  worker.  The  wages  of  farm 
laborers  are  generally  far  lower  than  those  of  industrial 
laborers  and  for  one  accustomed  to  city  life  the  loneliness 
of  the  country  is  often  intolerable.  The  farmer  who  prospers 
must  combine  a  high  degree  of  specialized  technical  skill 
with  good  business  ability,  and  these  things  the  factory- 
trained  worker  lacks  and  cannot  easily  learn.  The  farm  offers 
no  solution.  The  term  "wage  slavery"  is  therefore  hardly 
an  exaggeration. 

Herbert  Spencer  on  wage  slavery:  That  the  system  of 
wage-labor  is  a  form  of  slavery  is  sometimes  contended  by 
opponents  of  Socialism  as  stoutly  as  by  the  Socialists  them- 
selves. Herbert  Spencer,  for  example,  argues  this  with 
as  much  earnestness  and  force  as  any  Socialist  writer.  He 
says:  "The  wage-earning  factory-hand  does,  indeed,  exem- 
plify entirely  free  labor,  in  so  far  that,  making  contracts  at 
will  and  able  to  break  them  after  short  notice,  he  is  free  to 
engage  with  whomsoever  he  pleases  and  where  he  pleases. 
But  this  liberty  amounts  in  practice  to  little  more  than  the 
ability  to  exchange  one  slavery  for  another;  since,  fit  only 
for  his  particular  occupation,  he  has  rarely  an  opportunity 
of  doing  anything  more  than  decide  in  what  mill  he  will  pass 
the  greater  part  of  his  dreary  days.  The  coercion  of  circum- 
stances often  bears  more  hardly  on  him  than  the  coercion 
of  the  master  does  on  one  in  bondage."  1 

The  middle  class:  Between  the  true  capitalist  class  and 
the  true  proletariat  stands  a  somewhat  indefinite  middle 
class,  composed  of  small  capitalists,  professional  men,  salaried 

1  Herbert  Spencer,  The  Principles  of  Sociology,  vol.  Ill,  p.  525. 


CAPITALIST  SOCIETY 


11 


or  semi-independent  business  men  and  land-owning  farmers. 
The  lines  of  demarkation  between  the  middle  class  and  the 
classes  on  either  side  of  it  are  not  always  clearly  distinguish- 
able, but  the  types  of  the  three  classes  can  be  distinguished. 
The  middle  class  has  not  the  fixed  characteristics  of  the  other 
two.  Its  members  are  usually  either  striving  to  reach  the 
capitalist  class  or  struggling  desperately  to  avoid  sinking 
into  the  proletarian  class.  The  small  business  man  sees 
his  business  absorbed  into  a  combination  and  becomes 
himself  either  a  salaried  employee  or  a  wage-worker.  The 
small  capitalists  seem  to  be  increasing  in  number,  but  their 
influence  in  the  management  of  industry  is  diminishing. 

Pride  of  property  usually  makes  the  small  business  man 
an  ally  of  the  true  capitalist  class,  although  there  are  many 
examples  of  adherence  to  the  cause  of  the  proletariat  by 
members  of  that  group.  The  professional  man  is  becoming 
increasingly  dependent  upon  the  capitalist  class  for  support 
and  is  usually  conservative,  although  large  numbers  of 
professional  men  and  women  sympathize  with  the  pro- 
letariat and  many  become  active  leaders  in  proletarian 
movements.  The  proportion  of  farmers  owning  their  land 
is  steadily  diminishing1  and  the  farmer  is  becoming  more 
and  more  dependent  upon  capitalist  agencies  for  the  market- 
ing of  his  product.  These  facts  are  forcing  large  numbers 
of  farmers  into  sympathetic  relations  with  the  proletariat. 

TABLE   I 
CHANGES  IN  FARM  TENUBE  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES* 


Per  Cent,  of 

Number  of  Farms  Operated  by 

Farms  Operated 

Total 

by 

YEAR. 

Number  of 

Farms. 

Cash 

Share 

Owners. 

Cash 

Share 

Owners. 

Ten- 

Ten- 

Tenants. 

Tenants. 

ants. 

ants. 

1900... 

5,739,657 

3,713,371 

752,920 

1,273,366 

64.7 

13.1 

22.2 

1890... 

4,564,641 

3,269,728 

454,659 

840,254 

71.6 

10.0 

18.4 

1880... 

4,008,907 

2,984,306 

322,357 

702,244 

74.5 

8.0 

17.5 

1  See  Table,  Changes  in  Farm  Tenure  in  the  United  States. 

'  U.  S.  Census  Reports,  1900,  Vol.  V,  p.  Ixzvii. 


12  ELEMENTS   OF   SOCIALISM 

When  Marx  predicted  the  more  or  less  rapid  extinction  of 
the  middle  class  he  referred  primarily  to  the  class  of  petty 
manufacturers  and  merchants.  It  is  evident  that,  so  far 
from  becoming  extinct,  this  class  has  numerically  increased. 
This  increase  is  probably  accounted  for  in  part  by  the  fact 
that  economic  pressure  forces  large  numbers  of  wage-workers 
into  the  lower  ranks  of  the  middle  class,  most  of  whom  fail 
and  fall  back  into  the  proletariat  after  a  brief  struggle. 
This  movement  is  always  going  on.  Wage-workers  who  find 
it  impossible  to  secure  employment  take  their  small  savings 
and  attempt  to  make  a  living  in  the  petty  retail  trades, 
most  of  them  failing  and  sinking  into  a  worse  condition 
than  that  from  which  they  hoped  to  escape.  The  same  may 
be  said  of  thousands  of  wage-earners  too  old  for  work,  or 
incapacitated  by  disease  or  accident.  Those  who  do  not 
utterly  fail  may  be  roughly  divided  into  three  groups: 
(1)  those  who  eke  out  a  scanty  living  rarely  or  never  superior 
to  that  of  the  wage-earning  proletariat;  (2)  those  who  cease 
to  do  business  on  their  own  account  and  become  salaried 
employees,  as  agents  and  managers  for  large  corporations; 
(3)  those  whose  business  establishments  are  absorbed  by 
large  concerns  and  who  become  small  stockholders. 

Industrial  organization:  The  magnitude  of  modern  indus- 
trial enterprises,  and  the  great  amounts  of  capital  necessary 
for  their  establishment  and  operation,  make  individual  owner- 
ship impossible  as  a  general  rule.  Individual  capitals  must 
be  combined.  The  simplest  form  of  combination  in  owner- 
ship is  the  partnership  in  which  two  or  more  capitalists 
agree  to  engage  in  an  enterprise  together  and  share  in  the 
profits  in  proportion  to  the  capital  which  each  has  contrib- 
uted. If,  however,  these  capitalists  apply  to  the  State  and 
receive  a  charter  entitling  them  to  act  as  a  business  unit 
they  acquire,  as  a  corporation,  a  new  status.  They  not  only 
have  all  the  advantages  of  combined  capital,  but  the  addi- 
tional advantages  of  perpetual  life,  limited  liability,  flex- 
ibility of  organization  and  concentration  of  power.  Mem- 
bership in  the  corporation  consists  simply  in  the  ownership 
of  stock,  which  can  be  freely  bought  and  sold. 

These  advantages  have  made  the  corporation  the  charac- 
teristic form  of  industrial  organization  under  capitalism, 
and  the  result  has  been  the  development  of  a  distinct  indus- 


CAPITALIST  SOCIETY  13 

trial  State  within  the  political  State.  And  by  virtue  of  its 
control  of  the  means  of  livelihood  the  industrial  State  is  the 
more  powerful  and  largely  controls  the  political  organization 
of  society.  And,  while  since  the  eighteenth  century  the  forms 
of  the  political  State  have  become  more  democratic,  the 
industrial  State  remains  in  the  hands  of  the  few.  It  is  not 
even  an  aristocracy,  the  rule  of  the  best,  but  a  plutocracy, 
the  rule  of  the  richest. 

Gains  under  capitalism:  While  capitalism  has  brought 
with  it  many  evils  which  were  relatively  unknown  in  the 
earlier  stages  of  industrial  evolution,  it  is  at  the  same  time 
a  distinct  forward  step.  Contrary  to  a  very  common  im- 
pression, recognition  of  this  fact  is  inherent  in  the  philos- 
ophy of  Socialism.  Few  apologists  of  capitalism  have  more 
clearly  perceived,  or  more  eloquently  described  the  immense 
benefits,  both  material  and  spiritual,  of  the  capitalist  era 
than  Karl  Marx  himself.1 

Machinery  has  increased  the  productivity  of  labor  many 
fold.  While  the  most  apparent  benefits  of  this  gain  have  gone 
to  the  capitalists,  still  the  workers  have  made  real  and  sub- 
stantial progress.  The  proletarian  is  still  propertyless,  but 
he  consumes  more  goods,  of  greater  variety  and  better  qual- 
ity, than  did  his  ancestors  of  the  journeyman  and  peasant 
classes.  The  proletarian  in  Western  Europe  and  America 
is  better  educated  than  the  feudal  gentleman.  He  is  rapidly 
becoming  emancipated  from  superstition  and  freed  from 
intellectual  and  spiritual  bondage.  Travel  has  been  cheap- 
ened beyond  all  dreams  of  a  century  ago.  Famine  and 
pestilence  are  almost  unknown.  Disease  has  been  so  checked 
that  the  average  length  of  life  is  greater  by  fifteen  years 
than  before  the  industrial  revolution.  Wars  have  become 
less  frequent  and  the  nations  of  the  world  are  closer  together 
than  ever  before. 

II 

Relative  vs.  absolute  well-being:  While  it  is  true  that 
in  an  absolute  sense  the  working  classes  are  better  off,  there 
has  been  a  relative  loss.  A  far  larger  share  of  the  total 
product  of  industry  is  now  taken  in  the  form  of  rent,  interest 

1  See,  e.  g.,  The  Communist  Manifesto,  Part  I. 


14  ELEMENTS   OF  SOCIALISM 

and  profits  than  ever  before,  and  the  classes  in  society  who 
gain  their  income  from  such  sources  are  growing  in  wealth 
and  power  more  rapidly  than  are  the  working  classes.  The 
essential  thing  is  not  income  but  property.  Vested  interests, 
property  rights,  special  privileges,  rule  the  world  and  make 
democracy  impossible.  To  be  a  well-fed  slave  is  not  a  high 
ambition,  and  unless  the  workingman  can  gain  in  independ- 
ence, self-respect  and  a  sense  of  responsibility  no  superficial 
reform  will  carry  with  it  much  enduring  satisfaction,  no 
government  and  no  social  order  can  be  stable.  But  even 
so  far  as  these  superficial  things  go,  capitalistic  society  does 
not  give  to  the  proletariat  its  share  of  the  benefits  of  progress. 

Wages :  The  compensation  of  the  producer  under  capital- 
ism is  determined  neither  by  his  needs,  nor  by  the  value 
of  the  product  that  he  gives  to  society.  Laboring  power  is 
a  commodity  that  is  bought  and  sold  on  the  market,  and 
the  price  of  which  at  any  given  time  is  determined  by  the 
laws  of  supply  and  demand.  In  the  long  run,  the  wages  of 
any  given  class  of  labor  equals  its  cost  of  production.  Thus 
labor  becomes  as  impersonal  as  so  much  steam  or  water 
power,  and  is  placed  on  the  same  level  with  capital  and  land 
as  one  of  the  three  factors  in  production  in  the  currently 
accepted  economic  theory. 

The  "iron  law  of  wages":  The  statement  of  the  law  of 
wages  by  some  Socialists  in  Lassalle's  phrase,  "the  iron  law 
of  wages,"  needs  some  qualification.  According  to  this 
theory,  wages  can  never  permanently  rise  above  the  require- 
ments of  a  bare  subsistence,  for  if  they  should  so  rise  the 
number  of  children  would  increase,  thus  increasing  the 
supply  of  labor  and  drawing  the  wage  back  to  the  bare 
subsistence  level.  This  theory  has  been  disproved  by  ex- 
perience, for  as  a  matter  of  fact  wages  have  permanently 
risen.  Both  nominal  wages,  or  wages  expressed  in  money, 
and  real  wages,  or  the  sum  of  satisfaction  that  the  laborer 
is  able  to  enjoy  as  the  result  of  his  labor,  have  materially 
increased  within  fifty  years  and  increased  even  more  in  the 
preceding  fifty  years. 

It  frequently  happens  that  the  workers  in  one  town 
receive  higher  wages  and  enjoy  a  higher  standard  of  living 
than  workers  in  another  town  who  do  exactly  the  same  kind 
of  work.  The  peculiar  circumstances  attending  the  indus- 


CAPITALIST  SOCIETY  15 

trial  development  in  various  localities  exert  a  greater  influ- 
ence upon  the  standards  of  living  than  is  commonly  recog- 
nized. As  an  illustration :  In  one  town  the  woolen  industry 
was  first  established  by  English  workers  accustomed  to  a 
relatively  high  standard  of  living,  and  in  another  town  by 
Belgians  accustomed  to  a  relatively  low  standard  of  living. 
In  course  of  time,  through  the  migration  of  workers  and  other 
causes,  these  characteristics  disappear  and  in  both  towns  the 
industry  is  carried  on  by  a  cosmopolitan  industrial  popula- 
tion. But  the  standards  of  living  are  not  equalized.  Wages, 
both  nominal  and  real  wages,  continue  to  be  higher  in  the 
former  town  than  hi  the  latter.  In  other  words,  there  are 
local  standards  of  living  established  by  local  usage  and 
tradition. 

The  standard  of  life:  The  principal  fallacy  hi  the  "iron 
law  of  wages"  hi  its  extreme  form  is  that  the  changing 
standard  of  life  is  not  taken  into  account.  The  gains  in 
the  wage  scale  which  are  attained  from  time  to  time  are 
not  all  absorbed  in  larger  families,  but  a  large  part,  and  often 
the  whole,  of  the  gains  go  toward  a  greater  abundance  of 
material  goods,  education  and  recreation.  As  a  matter  of 
fact,  the  theory  that  any  substantial  increase  of  wages  will 
lead  to  an  increase  in  the  size  of  families  is  absolutely  unten- 
able. From  the  time  of  Adam  Smith  it  has  been  recognized 
that  low  wages,  extreme  poverty  and  large  families  go 
together.1  No  single  fact  concerning  population  is  better 
established  than  that  the  fecundity  of  the  poorer  classes  is 
always  greater  than  that  of  the  well-to-do  classes.  In  all 
countries  the  wealthiest  classes  are  most  infertile.2 

The  number  and  character  of  the  wants,  the  satisfaction 
of  which  appear  to  a  man  as  necessary,  constitute  his  stand- 
ard of  life.  The  typical  wage  will,  in  the  long  run,  be  just 
sufficient  to  maintain  this  standard  and  provide  for  the 
reproduction  of  labor.  At  any  given  time  and  place  the  wage 
may  be  higher  or  lower  than  the  type.  In  the  first  case  there 
will  be  expenditures  for  luxuries  and  a  tendency  toward  a 
higher  standard  of  life;  in  the  second  there  will  be  poverty 
with  occasional  or  chronic  pauperism,  and  a  tendency 

1  Cf .,  The  Wealth  of  Nations,  vol.  I,  ch.  viii. 

3  This  subject  is  discussed  at  length  in  The  Common  Sense  of  the  Milk 
Question,  by  John  Spargo. 


16  ELEMENTS   OF   SOCIALISM 

toward  a  lower  standard  of  life.  Taking  the  Western  world 
as  a  whole  the  standard  of  life  of  the  proletariat  has  steadily 
risen.  This  is  not  usually  apparent  from  year  to  year,  but 
from  generation  to  generation  the  gain  is  clearly  marked. 
It  is  particularly  obvious  as  between  the  first  and  second 
generations  of  European  immigrants  in  the  United  States. 

This  fact  of  the  rising  standard  of  living,  far  from  being 
an  argument  for  a  continuance  of  the  present  system,  is  the 
one  thing  that  makes  industrial  democracy  possible,  necessary 
and  inevitable.  It  is  a  demonstrable  fact  that  the  higher  the 
standard  of  life  the  greater  will  be  the  resistance  offered  to 
any  lowering  of  that  standard.  A  people  with  a  low  standard 
of  living  can  be  exploited,  robbed,  bullied,  and  even  mur- 
dered in  cold  blood,  without  offering  effective  resistance.  The 
Russian  moujiks  splendidly  illustrate  this  fact.  A  people 
with  a  high  standard  of  living,  on  the  other  hand,  are  jealous 
of  their  rights  and  quick  to  see  and  resent  any  infringement 
of  them. 

The  standard  of  life  everywhere  tends  to  rise.  There  are 
always  unsatisfied  wants  just  beyond  the  necessities  of  life 
which  will  be  satisfied  at  every  opportunity.  As  soon  as 
the  satisfaction  of  a  want  becomes  habitual  it  becomes  a 
part  of  the  standard  of  life.  Imitation  has  a  great  deal  to 
do  with  this  tendency  to  raise  the  standard  of  living.  Where 
approximate  equality  in  wealth  prevails  and  men  rarely 
come  into  direct  contact  with  those  whose  standard  of  life 
is  higher  than  theirs,  the  advance  is  slight  and  simply  follows 
the  increase  of  income.  But  where  differences  in  wealth  are 
great,  the  highest  standard  becomes  the  model  which  all 
strive  to  copy.  Rich  women  set  fashions  which  factory  girls 
feel  they  must  follow.  Expecially  is  this  true  where  a 
democratic  philosophy  has  been  preached,  and  where  there 
is  a  tradition  of  those  who  have  successfully  crossed  class 
barriers.  In  such  a  community  there  will  be  vigorous  resist- 
ance, not  only  to  a  lowering  of  the  standard  of  life,  but  to 
any  interference  with  the  rising  of  the  standard,  either  by 
law  or  by  economic  exploitation. 

Economic  pressure  and  resistance:  In  the  earlier  stages 
of  social  evolution  it  was  the  limitations  of  the  physical 
environment  which  pressed  upon  the  individual  and  pre- 
vented the  full  satisfaction  of  his  wants.  War,  slavery, 


CAPITALIST  SOCIETY  17 

feudal  landlord,  monarch  and  crystallized  religious  forms 
have  successively  and  together  suppressed  the  natural  prog- 
ress of  mankind.  All  these  forms  of  social  pressure  were 
largely  economic  in  their  origin,  but  the  most  prevalent 
form  of  social  pressure  under  capitalism  is  more  purely 
economic  than  any  earlier  form. 

The  older  checks  on  progress  have  lost  much  of  their  force. 
Invention  and  discovery  have  pushed  back  the  physical 
limitations,  wars  are  less  frequent,  chattel  slavery  is  abol- 
ished, the  feudal  landlord  and  the  monarch  are  anachronisms, 
and  religious  terrorism  has  lost  much  of  its  force.  The  great 
repressive  force  now  is  the  capitalistic  domination  of  indus- 
try, the  wage  system  by  which  labor  is  deprived  of  a  large 
part  of  its  product,  and  the  limitation  of  industrial  produc- 
tion for  the  sake  of  greater  profits  and  a  higher  standard 
of  life  for  the  few  at  the  expense  of  the  many.  Organized 
capitalism  stands  like  a  rock  against  any  relative  gam  on 
the  part  of  labor.  It  imports  laborers  with  a  lower  standard 
of  life  to  lower  the  standard  at  home.  Less  personal  and 
more  active  than  any  of  the  older  forms  of  pressure,  except 
the  physical  limitations  themselves,  capitalism  not  only 
endeavors  to  prevent  the  standard  of  life  from  rising  but 
attempts  directly  to  lower  it. 

To  this  pressure  the  proletariat  offers  a  resistance  pro- 
portionate to  the  gains  already  made.  This  resistance  is 
not  always  conscious,  and  is  not  usually  consciously  directed 
against  the  real  source  of  the  pressure,  but  wherever  there 
is  a  protest  meeting,  a  labor  union,  a  strike,  a  proletarian 
political  party  or  a  social  revolution,  this  resistance  is  mani- 
festing itself.  When  this  resistance  is  consciously  directed 
against  capitalism  and  towards  industrial  democracy  and 
social  freedom,  all  the  essentials  of  a  Socialist  movement 
may  be  said  to  exist. 


18  ELEMENTS   OF   SOCIALISM 

SUMMARY 

I 

1.  Socialist  criticism  is  essentially  constructive  and  impersonal. 

2.  The  invention  of  machinery  and  the  rise  of  factories  brought 
about  the  reconstruction  of  social  classes,  the  capitalist  owners  of  the 
means  of  production  becoming  the  dominant  class  and  the  proletariat, 
composed  of  propertyless  wage-workers,  the  subject  class. 

3.  Between  the  capitalist  class  and  the  proletariat  is  a  middle  class, 
less  definitely  constituted  than  either,   and  with  the  interests  and 
sympathies  of  its  members  divided. 

4.  The  capitalist  age  has  been  one  of  great  material  progress,  with 
a  distinct  gain  in  the  absolute  well-being  of  the  majority. 

II 

5.  The  compensation  of  labor  under  capitalism  takes  the  form  of 
a  competitive  wage,  and  the  typical  wage  is  just  sufficient  to  maintain 
the  current  standard  of  life  of  the  laborer  and  his  family. 

6.  The  standard  of  life  tends  to  rise  from  generation  to  generation, 
creating  a  continually  strengthening  demand  for  higher  wages. 

7.  The  capitalist  domination  of  industry  acts  as  a  great  repressive 
force  tending  to  lower  the  standard  of  life  of  the  proletariat. 

QUESTIONS 

1.  Why  do  Socialists  refuse  to  direct  special  attacks  against  the 
institutions  of  monarchy? 

2.  What  are  the  dominant  characteristics  of  the  capitalist  class? 
Of  the  proletariat? 

3.  What  reasons  are  there  for  considering  the  position  of  the  pro- 
letariat one  of  wage-slavery? 

4.  What  are  the  advantages  of  the  corporation  as  a  form  of  business 
organization? 

5.  In  what  respects  has  the  working  class  gained  through  capitalism? 

6.  Distinguish  between  absolute  and  relative  well-being. 

7.  Criticise  the  "Iron  Law  of  Wages." 

8.  What  is  meant  by  the  "Standard  of  Life"? 

9.  How  is  the  standard  of  life  related  to  the  wage  system? 

LITERATURE 

Ely,  R.  T.,  and  Wicker,  G.  R.,  Elementary  Principles  of  Economics, 
Part  IV,  Chap.  III. 

Marx,  Karl,  Capital,  Vol.  I,  Parts  II  and  VI. 

Spargo,  John,  The  Common  Sense  of  the  Milk  Question,  Chap.  I; 
The  Substance  of  Socialism,  Part  III. 


CHAPTER  III 

PLANLESS   PRODUCTION 

The  competitive  system:  America  has  grown  up  in  the 
spirit  of  the  laissezfaire  philosophy:  we  have  been  taught 
to  believe  that  if  the  government  and  the  monopolists 
would  not  interfere,  individual  self  interest  working  in  the 
spheres  of  production  and  exchange  would  bring  about  the 
highest  possible  social  efficiency.  America  has  been  the 
paradise  of  this  laissez  faire  individualism.  With  mil- 
lions of  acres  of  free  land  to  which  the  dissatisfied  could 
go,  and  a  continent  to  develop;  with  the  absence  of  tradi- 
tional authority  and  the  presence  of  the  most  adventurous 
spirits  of  all  countries,  it  is  no  wonder  that  individualism 
and  competition  appeal  to  the  typical  American.  Then, 
too,  the  idea  of  the  "Survival  of  the  Fittest"  introduced  by 
Darwin,  gave  to  competition  a  new  scientific  basis,  so  that 
even  in  these  days  of  huge  combinations,  when  Judge  Gary 
of  the  United  States  Steel  Corporation  testifies  before  a 
Committee  of  the  House  of  Representatives  that  competition 
in  the  steel  industry  is  dead,1  a  large  element  in  the  American 
population  still  wishes  to  destroy  the  "Trust"  and  rely  upon 
competition  to  bring  about  substantial  social  justice. 

This  idea  of  the  effectiveness  of  competition  was  illus- 
trated by  an  economist  of  a  past  generation  by  a  description 
of  the  provisioning  of  London,  holding  it  to  be  self-evident 
that  no  public  or  monopolistic  agency  could  meet  the  com- 
plex and  multiform  needs  so  well  as  they  were  met  by  the 
blind  working  of  competition.  But  the  people  of  London 
were  not  all  fed.  Perhaps  as  many  as  thirty  per  cent  had 
to  go  hungry  part  of  the  time,  then  as  now.  Competition 
falls  far  short  of  efficiency. 

Lack  of  coordination:  In  the  laissez  faire  philosophy 
it  was  forgotten  that  individual  liberty  must  be  limited 

1  Vide  reports  in  the  daily  press,  July,  1911. 

19 


20  ELEMENTS   OF   SOCIALISM 

in  order  to  bring  about  the  maximum  of  social  liberty. 
Darwin  and  his  immediate  followers  failed  to  emphasize 
as  Kropotkin  has  done  the  importance  of  cooperation  as 
a  factor  in  evolution.  Competition  is  chaotic,  it  has  no 
organization.  It  is  simply  the  outgrowth  of  the  ages  before 
modern  science  was  born.  A  scientific  age  demands  scien- 
tific methods,  and  competition  in  industry  is  the  reverse  of 
scientific 

Under  competition  there  is  no  way  of  estimating  the 
demand.  Producers  work  blindly  and  hope  to  be  able  to 
dispose  of  their  products  at  a  profit.  There  is  no  apportion- 
ment of  the  work  among  the  various  producers,  so  that  no 
producer  knows  how  much  of  the  supply  it  will  pay  him  to 
produce.  This  is  especially  evident  in  agriculture  within  a 
limited  market.  If  the  price  of  potatoes  has  been  high  each 
farmer  will  plant  a  large  acreage  of  potatoes,  with  the  result 
that  in  the  next  season  there  will  be  an  over-supply  of  a 
bulky  and  perishable  product  which  cannot  be  profitably 
disposed  of.  Competition,  therefore,  results  in  great  fluc- 
tuations in  price,  gambling  in  the  necessities  of  life,  numerous 
business  failures,  irregular  production  and  consequent  injury 
to  the  working  class. 

Unnecessary  duplication:  Anyone  who  has  lived  in  a  city 
which  rejoiced  in  two  or  three  different  telephone  systems 
can  appreciate  the  disadvantages  of  competition.  Every 
business  man  must  have  "both  'phones,"  and  whenever 
one  wishes  to  call  a  friend  on  his  "Independent"  telephone 
he  discovers  to  his  sorrow  that  the  friend  has  a  "Bell." 
Nothing  is  gained  by  this  expensive  duplication  and  incon- 
venience, for  either  extreme  or  "cut-throat"  competition 
must  go  on  until  one  company  is  financially  ruined,  or  the 
companies  must  agree  on  a  rate,  thus  giving  no  advantage 
over  monopoly.  Much  money  has  been  wasted  in  paralleling 
railroads.  Capital  diverted  from  industry  for  the  purpose 
of  building  unnecessary  roads  is  a  social  loss.  Often  a  rail- 
road is  built  as  a  huge  blackmailing  scheme,  built  with  the 
preconceived  plan  of  selling  out  to  the  competitor.  Real 
competition  in  public  service  facilities  is  practically  non- 
existent and  impossible  for  any  considerable  length  of 
time. 

In  the  process  of  exchange  the  wastes  of  competition  are 


PLANLESS   PRODUCTION  21 

obvious.  Several  grocery  stores  in  a  small  town  carry 
identical  stocks  of  goods,  duplicate  floor  space,  stale  goods, 
managers  and  clerks,  while  one  large  store  with  branches  as 
the  town  became  larger  could  supply  the  needs  of  the  town 
much  more  cheaply  and  could  afford  to  change  stock  more 
frequently.  The  distribution  of  the  milk  supply  where  a 
dozen  milk  wagons  serve  a  single  street  needs  only  to  be 
compared  with  the  postal  delivery  system  to  illustrate  the 
wastes  of  competition.  In  manufacture  the  wastes  of  com- 
petition are  equally  obvious.  Even  now  that  a  considerable 
degree  of  monopoly  has  been  attained,  there  are  far  more 
factories  than  would  be  necessary  under  an  efficient  and 
economical  system  of  production. 

Advertising:  One  of  the  greatest  wastes  in  the  marketing 
of  commodities  is  in  the  matter  of  advertising.  Advertising 
has,  of  course,  a  legitimate  place  in  business  life  and  would 
to  some  extent  be  necessary  in  a  Socialist  commonwealth. 
It  is  necessary  to  make  a  market  for  a  new  product,  to  call 
attention  to  the  advantages  of  new  methods  over  old.  But 
it  is  not  necessary  to  spend  huge  sums  in  persuading  people 
to  buy  one  brand  of  a  standard  article  rather  than  another 
equally  good.  The  excessive  advertising  of  soaps  and  break- 
fast foods  illustrates  this  waste. 

Advertising  also  offers  a  means  of  influencing  the  press 
in  a  manner  and  to  a  degree  that  is  socially  dangerous  and 
undesirable.  Newspapers  and  magazines  cannot  live  with- 
out advertising,  and  the  judicious  placing  of  advertising 
matter,  or  the  threat  of  the  withdrawal  of  such  matter 
already  placed  has  changed  the  editorial  policy  of  many 
newspapers  and  magazines. 

The  wastes  of  duplication  can  also  be  seen  in  personal 
advertising  by  travelling  salesmen.  The  "drummer"  equally 
with  the  printed  advertisement  has  a  legitimate  function 
to  perform  in  keeping  retail  dealers  in  touch  with  the  larger 
business  world,  persuading  them  to  introduce  novelties, 
and  saving  to  the  retailer  the  expense  of  going  to  the  city 
to  place  an  order.  But  it  is  clearly  an  economic  waste  when 
salesmen  from  several  wholesale  houses  visit  one  small 
grocer  within  a  single  week,  trying  to  persuade  him  to  in- 
crease his  stock  of  standard  goods. 

Useless  vocations:  The  capitalist  system  makes  necessary 


22  ELEMENTS   OF   SOCIALISM 

many  vocations  which  are  not  socially  productive,  and  which 
draw  large  numbers  of  the  ablest  men  and  women  from  pro- 
ductive work.  With  the  socialization  of  capital  these  voca- 
tions would  largely  disappear  and  a  heavy  tax  upon  the 
producing  population  be  saved. 

(1)  Lawyers:  There  were  114,703  lawyers   in  the  United 
States  according  to  the  census  of  1900,  the  increase  of  law- 
yers between  that  and  the  previous  census  being  much 
more  rapid  than  that  of  the  total  population.    It  is  safe  to 
say  that  now  (1911)  there  are  more  than  140,000  persons 
in  the  legal  profession  in  this  country.    Probably  nine-tenths 
of  the  litigation  and  an  even  larger  part  of  legal  business 
transacted  out  of  court  involves  property  rights  and  other 
issues  directly  resulting  from  capitalism.    While  the  social- 
ization of  capital  would  probably  not  do  away  with  the 
legal  profession  in  its  entirety,  it  is  evident  that  the  number 
of  lawyers  would  be  greatly  reduced. 

(2)  Soldiers:  Since  the  only  function  of  the  army  and 
navy  under  capitalism  is  to  extend  foreign  markets  and 
coerce  rebels  against  capitalist  authority,  militarism  cannot 
survive  the  present  industrial  system.     This  will  release 
for  socially  beneficial  work  not  only  the  100,000  men  in  the 
army  and  navy,  but  the  greater  army  engaged  in  the  manu- 
facture of  the  munitions  of  war,  in  the  provisioning  and 
serving  of  the  army  and  navy,  and  in  the  administrative 
bureaus.    The  cost  of  militarism  to  the  country,  exclusive  of 
pensions,  is  $300,000,000  a  year.    The  same  amount  spent 
in  productive  labor  would  add  tremendously  to  the  wealth 
and  well-being  of  the  nation.     A  simple,  inexpensive  and 
democratic  system  of  national  defense  could  easily  be  sub- 
stituted   for     the     present     wasteful    and    undemocratic 
system. 

(3)  Bankers  and  brokers:  The  number  of  persons  in  the 
United  States  engaged  in  these  occupations  is  constantly 
increasing.     In  1870  the  number  was  10,631.     By  1880  it 
had  risen  to  15,180,  and  by  1890  to  30,008.    By  1900  the 
number  was  73,277.    Thus  the  number  of  bankers  and  brokers 
has  been  steadily  increasing  three  times  as  fast  as  the  total 
population.    In  addition  to  this  army  of  men  a  very  con- 
siderable part  of  the  1,000,000  clerks,  copyists,  bookkeepers, 
accountants  and  stenographers  enumerated  in  the  census  of 


PLANLESS   PRODUCTION  23 

1900  were  employed  in  banks  and  brokerage  houses.  To  a 
very  large  extent,  these  occupations  are  socially  unproduc- 
tive and  wasteful.  The  banking  operations  which  would  be 
necessary  under  Socialism  would  employ  only  an  insig- 
nificant proportion  of  those  now  directly  or  indirectly 
engaged  in  banking.  The  broker  is  purely  a  social  parasite, 
and  as  such  would  have  no  place  in  a  rationally  conducted 
society.  He  would  be  given  useful  work  and  thus  trans- 
formed from  a  parasite  to  a  useful  and  productive  member 
of  society. 

(4)  Agents:  Another  unnecessary  group  which  would  be 
practically  eliminated  under  Socialism  is  that  of  insurance, 
real  estate  and  sales  agents,  which  in  1900  numbered  in  the 
United  States  241,333  persons.  State  insurance  would  not 
need  agents.  Land  would  not  be  bought  and  sold.  Sales 
agents  would  have  only  the  limited  function  of  introducing 
new  classes  of  goods  with  which  people  were  unfamiliar,  a 
function  similar  to  that  of  the  travelling  salesman  under 
Socialism. 

The  premium  on  dishonesty:  Competition  and  the  profit 
system  make  it  almost  impossible  for  men  to  succeed  in 
many  lines  of  business  without  resorting  to  deception,  unfair 
advantage  and  adulteration  of  goods.  Profits  are  gained  by 
reducing  the  expenses  of  production  and  selling  at  the  highest 
possible  price.  The  sale  of  cotton  and  shoddy  for  wool,  the 
addition  of  glucose  to  sugar,  injurious  preservatives  in  food- 
stuffs, poor  building  materials  sold  for  good,  deodorized  eggs 
and  embalmed  beef,  bogus  mining  stocks,  "city  lots"  in  a 
Florida  swamp,  railway  rebates,  manipulation  of  legislatures, 
two  hundred  per  cent,  on  chattel  loans  and  a  thousand  other 
nefarious  devices  have  been  developed  by  a  laissez  faire 
competitive  system.  When  one  competitor  resorts  to  such 
means  the  others  must  follow  or  go  out  of  business.  Restric- 
tive legislation  is  bitterly  fought  by  personally  honest  men. 
One  method  of  deception  is  hardly  made  illegal  before  another 
is  devised.  The  spirit  of  the  law  is  violated  and  the  letter 
upheld.  Government  inspectors  must  watch  all  forms  of 
manufacture  to  detect  violations  of  the  law,  and  it  becomes 
an  advantage  to  the  manufacturer  to  bribe  the  inspector. 
Nor  must  it  be  forgotten  that  practically  the  entire  system 
of  government  regulation  and  inspection  with  its  army  of 


24  ELEMENTS   OF   SOCIALISM 

employees  and  expensive  departmental  machinery  is  a  social 
waste,  made  necessary  by  the  nature  of  capitalism. 

To  these  evils  must  be  added  the  danger  to  the  health  and 
lives  of  the  workers  under  the  profit  system.  Every  safety 
device  costs  money  and  the  manufacturer  not  unnaturally 
hesitates  to  incur  the  expenditure  lest  it  reduce  the  margin 
of  profit.  One  manufacturer  may  even  wish  to  guard  his 
machinery,  but  find  himself  unable  to  do  so  unless  his  com- 
petitors do  the  same,  and  even  he  will  fight  a  law  compelling 
him  to  protect  the  lives  of  his  employees.  So  it  is  with 
sanitation.  Even  a  private  monopoly  is  more  likely  to 
safeguard  the  health  of  its  employees  than  is  the  best  indi- 
vidual employer  under  competition. 

Over-production  and  under-consumption :  In  the  struggle 
between  competing  producers  it  frequently  happens  that 
the  public  demand  for  an  article  at  a  certain  price  is  over- 
estimated. Or  the  price  may  be  temporarily  above  the 
normal,  and  manufacturers  in  either  case  run  their  factories 
to  their  fullest  capacity  and  produce  more  than  can  be  profit- 
ably disposed  of.  Competition  in  selling  drives  the  price 
down  until  sellers  prefer  to  hold  goods  rather  than  to  sell. 
The  factories  are  then  closed,  the  employees  are  thrown  out 
of  work,  and  production  is  only  resumed  after  the  accumu- 
lated product  has  been  gradually  marketed.  A  series  of 
profitable  years  often  stimulates  production  to  such  an 
extent  that  there  comes  to  be  what  is  known  as  "general 
over-production."  In  nearly  all  lines  of  industry  the  prod- 
ucts exceed  the  demand  at  prices  which  yield  a  surplus  to 
the  manufacturer. 

But  at  the  same  time  that  warehouses  are  loaded  with 
unsold  goods  thousands  of  consumers  are  going  without 
them,  simply  because  they  cannot  afford  to  buy.  The  real 
problem  is  not  over-production,  but  under-consumption. 
True,  over-production — the  production  of  more  than  can 
be  consumed  to  the  advantage  of  the  consumers — is  possible 
in  some  industries,  but  general  over-production  is  impossible. 
The  capacity  of  society  to  expand  its  wants  for  more  and 
better  goods  is  practically  unlimited,  and  it  is  always  possible 
for  the  average  man  to  consume  the  equivalent  of  what  he 
produces.  The  producers  and  consumers  in  general  are  the 
same  individuals  viewed  from  different  viewpoints,  and  if 


PLANLESS   PRODUCTION  25 

each  family  were  able  to  consume  the  equivalent  of  what  its 
members  produced  there  could  be  no  question  of  over- 
production. 

The  tendency  of  monopoly  in  industry  is  toward  the  better 
regulation  of  production  and  the  elimination  of  over-pro- 
duction and  its  results.  But  not  until  this  tendency  to  the 
monopolization  of  industry  reaches  its  culmination  in  social- 
ization will  the  real  problem  of  under-consumption  be  solved. 

Crises:  The  whole  period  of  capitalist  industry  has  been 
marked  by  periodic  fluctuations  in  business  conditions.  A 
period  of  prosperity  is  followed  by  a  crisis,  a  panic  in  the 
world's  markets,  and  a  period  of  business  depression  and 
social  distress.  There  have  been  four  "major  crises"  in  the 
United  States,  those  of  1837,  1857,  1873  and  1893.  The 
major  crisis  seems  to  come  at  intervals  of  about  twenty 
years,  that  of  1873  being  hastened  by  conditions  following 
the  Civil  War.  Minor  panics  and  crises  have  usually  alter- 
nated with  major  crises,  giving  a  period  of  business  depression 
about  once  in  every  ten  years. 

Crises  are  commonly  explained  as  a  result  of  an  over- 
expansion  of  the  credit  system.  Bank  credit  is  loaned  to 
business  men  in  too  large  quantities  and  on  too  little  security. 
Easy  credit  tempts  men  to  take  too  great  business  risks, 
and  when  their  notes  become  due  they  are  unable  to  pay. 
The  bank  which  has  guaranteed  their  obligations  then  fails, 
and  with  the  close  interrelation  of  banks  and  business  houses, 
one  after  another  is  drawn  into  bankruptcy  until  the  busi- 
ness world  is  paralyzed.  A  crop  failure  may  precipitate  a 
panic  by  diminishing  the  purchasing  power  of  farming  com- 
munities, thereby  reducing  the  profits  of  manufacturers  and 
making  them  unable  to  meet  their  notes.  Whatever  its 
cause,  a  panic  is  bound  to  grow.  Business  is  founded  on 
credit  and  credit  is  almost  destroyed.  Even  the  securities 
on  which  credit  is  based  fall  in  value,  and  money  itself  is 
hoarded,  thus  reducing  bank  reserves. 

This  is  one  side  of  the  problem.  On  the  other  side  stands 
the  fundamental  difficulty  that  the  high  profits  of  a  pros- 
perous time  increase  the  relative  gains  of  the  capitalist  class 
as  against  those  of  the  proletariat.  These  additional  gains 
are  transformed  into  capital  which  must  be  re-invested  in 
further  production.  With  its  lower  relative  income  the  great 


26  ELEMENTS  OF  SOCIALISM 

consuming  proletariat  cannot  buy  its  own  product.  Its 
purchases  fall  off  as  in  the  case  of  the  farmers  at  the  time 
of  a  crop  failure.  Goods  lie  unsold  in  warehouses  and  the 
profits  of  manufacturers  from  which  loans  were  to  be  repaid 
are  not  forthcoming.  This  situation  breaks  at  some  point 
and  a  panic  ensues.  Unemployment  following  the  panic 
still  further  reduces  the  purchasing  power  of  the  people, 
and  it  is  only  after  the  surplus  has  been  consumed  by  the 
capitalist  class,  their  servants  and  those  who  produce  goods 
and  services  for  them,  or  after  some  of  the  surplus  has  been 
given  away  in  the  form  of  charity,  that  the  normal  level 
can  be  regained  and  the  entire  process  begun  anew. 

Passing  of  the  competitive  era:  Unregulated  competition 
is  largely  a  thing  of  the  past.  Competition  through  price  is 
modified  to  such  an  extent  that  the  ruinous  cut-throat  com- 
petition of  a  generation  ago  is  practically  unknown.  There 
is  still  some  degree  of  competitive  price  in  the  wholesale 
trade  in  staple  goods,  but  it  is  incidental  and  relatively 
unimportant.  There  is  also  a  form  of  competition  in  the 
retail  trade,  consisting  of  advertising  and  other  attempts 
to  "get  the  business,"  but  price  agreements  prevent  the 
disastrous  consequences  of  unregulated  competition.  Thus 
some  of  the  evils  of  competition  are  eliminated  through  the 
increasing  magnitude  of  the  business  units.  In  many  indus- 
tries this  process  has  gone  still  further  and  has  culminated 
in  monopoly.  The  tendency  of  monopoly  in  industry  is 
toward  the  better  regulation  of  production  and  the  elimina- 
tion of  over-production  and  its  results.  But  it  brings  with 
it  greater  concentration  of  wealth  and  a  higher  degree  of 
direct  exploitation,  so  that  monopoly  is  not  in  itself  a  solu- 
tion of  the  basic  industrial  problem. 

The  waste  of  labor:  The  capitalist  system  requires  at  all 
times  a  great  reserve  army  of  laborers  who,  ordinarily  unem- 
ployed, can  be  called  into  active  service  in  times  when 
production  needs  to  be  increased.  In  the  United  States 
from  one  to  three  million  workers1  capable  of  adding  enor- 

1  This  is  admittedly  a  very  vague  and  unsatisfactory  statement  to 
make  upon  such  an  important  subject.  Adams  and  Sumner  with 
wisdom  and  truth  remark  that  "there  is  no  more  difficult  topic  in  the 
whole  range  of  labor  problems,  and  few  so  important,  as  this  subject 
of  unemployment"  (Labor  Problems,  p.  519).  Upon  no  problem  of 
equal  importance  do  we  possess  less  exact  information.  The  number 


PLANLESS  PRODUCTION  27 

mously  to  the  social  wealth  by  their  labor  are  constantly  idle. 
The  relatively  inefficient,  the  so-called  "unemployed,"  who 
might  be  producing  something  at  least,  are  usually  not 
employed  at  all,  but  supported  by  charity.  When  to  these 
are  added  the  idle  rich  and  their  servants  and  retainers,  the 
producers  of  ostentatious  luxuries  for  the  plutocracy,  those 
employed  in  the  unproductive  and  parasitic  occupations 
already  enumerated,  and  the  vast  number  of  workers  whose 
labor  is  largely  wasted  through  poorly  organized  private 
enterprise,  it  will  at  once  be  seen  what  a  tremendous 
waste  of  labor-power  is  involved  in  the  chaotic  and  planless 
capitalist  system.  It  is  certain  that  with  the  elimination  of 
all  this  waste  a  far  higher  standard  of  life  than  the  present 
average  could  be  maintained  with  comparatively  short  hours 
of  labor. 

Agricultural  production:  Although  the  tendency  in  manu- 
facture and  commerce  is  towards  concentration  and  the 
elimination  of  the  evils  of  competition,  the  tendency  in 
agriculture  is  apparently  the  reverse.  The  great  "bonanza 
farms"  of  the  West  and  the  great  plantations  of  the  South 
are  being  broken  up  into  smaller  holdings.  The  number  of 
farms  as  shown  by  the  census  is  steadily  increasing.  In 
Europe  this  same  process  is  going  on.  Great  estates  are 
being  divided  into  small  farms  and  sold  to  peasants  on  State 
credit.  Is  competition,  then,  effective  and  desirable  in 
agriculture? 

The  same  evils  of  lack  of  coordination  and  unnecessary 
duplication  exist  in  agriculture  as  in  industry.  The  inde- 
pendent farmer  is  not  in  touch  with  the  consumer  and 
cannot  tell  in  advance  what  acreage  it  will  be  worth  while 
for  him  to  devote  to  each  crop.  The  risk  which  each  farmer 
must  assume  is,  in  proportion  to  his  capital,  very  great. 
Drought,  frost,  hail  or  insect  pests  may  destroy  his  whole 
crop  and  reduce  him  to  poverty.  In  spite  of  the  apparent 

of  unemployed  workers  rarely  falls  below  one  million,  even  in  "good" 
times.  In  "bad"  times  it  frequently  rises  to  considerably  more  than 
three  millions.  For  example,  1900  was  by  no  means  a  very  "bad" 
year,  but,  according  to  the  federal  census  of  that  year,  thirty-nine 
per  cent,  of  the  male  workers,  2,069,546  persons,  were  idle  from  four 
to  six  months  of  the  year  (U.  S.  Census,  Special  Reports,  volume  on 
"Occupation,"  p.  ccxxxv).  The  conservatism  of  the  statement  in  the 
text  is  evident  (cf.  Hunter,  Poverty,  ch.  I). 


28  ELEMENTS   OF   SOCIALISM 

increase  in  competition,  the  real  tendency  is  toward  its 
elimination.  In  the  first  place,  there  is  a  marked  concentra- 
tion of  farm  ownership,  as  we  have  already  seen.1  In  the 
next  place,  the  marketing  of  farm  produce  has  passed  out 
of  the  hands  of  the  farmers  themselves.  Instead  of  being 
able  to  sell  direct  to  the  consumer,  they  must  reach  him 
through  an  army  of  middlemen  whose  functions  are  becom- 
ing more  and  more  concentrated.  The  industrial  functions 
which  formerly  constituted  a  large  part  of  farming  have 
passed  out  of  the  farmer's  hands.  He  no  longer  makes 
butter  and  cheese,  nor  does  he  peddle  milk  about  the  city. 
These  functions  are  capitalized  and  concentrated.  The  more 
expensive  farm  machinery,  like  threshing  machines  and 
reapers,  are  either  owned  cooperatively  or  owned  and 
operated  by  those  who  specialize  in  that  part  of  farm  work 
and  make  it  their  business. 

Some  of  the  evils  of  unrestrained  competition  are  partially 
avoided  by  the  crop  reports  and  recommendations  of  the 
Department  of  Agriculture,  an  example  of  collective  action 
saving  the  individual  from  the  evil  consequences  of  an 
inefficient  individualism.  A  similar  service  is  performed  by 
associations  and  unions  of  farmers  engaged  in  producing 
certain  groups  of  crops.  So  keenly  is  the  necessity  of  elim- 
inating competition  felt  at  times  that  violence  is  resorted  to 
for  the  purpose  of  regulating  production,  as  by  the  tobacco 
planters  of  Kentucky,  for  example.  The  separate  farm  may 
remain,  but  competition  is  no  more  desirable  in  farming 
than  in  the  other  branches  of  production. 

Where  competition  may  persist:  Competition  as  a  regu- 
lator of  industry  is  a  failure.  It  is  unscientific,  it  lacks  adapt- 
ability and  coordination,  it  involves  too  much  individual 
risk,  it  involves  social  loss  in  duplication  of  plants,  machines 
and  men,  it  wastes  men  and  money  in  advertising,  it  brings 
about  adulteration  of  goods  and  cheap  construction,  and  it 
increases  the  danger  of  under-consumption  and  crises.  But 
a  certain  kind  of  competition  would  remain  either  under 
private  or  public  monopoly.  It  is  socially  advantageous  to 
have  men  and  groups  of  men  strive  toward  greater  efficiency. 
A  healthy  rivalry  between  farmers  to  keep  up  the  best  farm, 
and  to  produce  crops  of  the  highest  quality  in  the  greatest 

» See  Table  I,  p.  11. 


PLANLESS  PRODUCTION  29 

quantity  adds  to  the  social  wealth  and  well-being,  as  does 
the  rivalry  of  the  same  sort  between  manufacturing  establish- 
ments and  transportation  lines.  A  competition  between  men 
for  position  and  public  honors  when  the  reward  is  clearly 
placed  on  a  basis  of  efficiency  and  merit,  results  in  a  distinct 
social  gain.  It  is  entirely  possible  to  retain  all  the  benefits 
of  competition  without  enduring  its  evils. 


SUMMARY 

1.  Industrial    competition    necessarily    involves    great    social    loss 
through  the  duplication  of  establishments  and  services,  and  in  the 
advertising  of  goods. 

2.  The  capitalist  system  makes  necessary  many  socially  unproductive 
vocations. 

3.  Privately   organized   industry  offers   irresistible   temptation   to 
dishonesty  and  fraud. 

4.  The  risks  of  capitalist  industry  give  rise  to  periodic  crises  which 
bear  most  heavily  upon  the  working  class. 

5.  Competition  in  the  form  of  personal  and  group  rivalry  for  social 
efficiency,  position  and  honor  may  persist  without  industrial  competi- 
tion. 

QUESTIONS 

1.  Why  does  competition  fail  as  a  regulator  of  industry? 

2.  Give  examples  of  unnecessary  duplication  in  industry. 

3.  Discuss  the  Socialist  position  in  regard  to  advertising. 

4.  Explain  the  relation  between  the  capitalist  system  and  the  voca- 
tion of  law. 

5.  What  is  meant  by  over-production?    Under-consumption? 

6.  Why  does  capitalist  society  fail  to  utilize  all  of  the  available 
supply  of  labor? 

7.  How  is  the  farmer  affected  by  the  capitalist  system? 

8.  What  would  be  the  place  of  competition  under  Socialism? 


LITERATURE 

Ely,  R.  T.,  Socialism  and  Social  Reform,  Part  II. 
Hunter,  Robert,  Poverty. 

Hyndman,  H.  M.,  Commercial  Crises  of  the  Nineteenth  Century. 
Kelly,  Edmond,  Twentieth  Century  Socialism,  Book  II. 
Reeve,  S.  A.,  The  Cost  of  Competition. 
Simons,  A.  M.,  The  American  Farmer. 


CHAPTER  IV 

POVERTY 

What  constitutes  poverty?  Our  definition  of  poverty  has 
been  somewhat  anticipated.  Poverty  is  at  once  an  absolute 
and  a  relative  condition.  As  an  absolute  condition,  it  may 
be  defined  as  an  insufficient  supply  of  those  things  which 
are  necessary  to  maintain  efficiency  in  the  conditions  existing 
at  a  given  time  and  in  a  given  place.  A  family  may  be  said 
to  be  in  poverty  when  its  income  is  insufficient  to  provide 
for  all  its  members  the  things  necessary  to  maintain  them 
in  a  state  of  physical  efficiency.  This  is  true  regardless  of 
the  fact  that  the  income  would  have  sufficed  to  keep  another 
family  at  the  standard  of  efficiency  in  some  other  place,  or 
in  the  same  place  at  some  other  time.  Thus  poverty  is  a 
relative  condition.  The  Chinese  coolie  can  supply  all  his 
felt  wants,  and  maintain  himself  efficiently,  according  to 
Chinese  standards,  on  a  wage  which  would  mean  starvation 
to  an  Italian  laborer.  In  turn  the  Italian  laborer  can  main- 
tain himself  efficiently  and  save  money  on  a  wage  entirely 
insufficient  to  efficiently  maintain  an  American  workingman. 
A  family  with  a  three  dollars  a  day  standard — that  is,  a 
family  living  under  conditions  in  which  it  takes  three  dollars 
a  day  to  procure  the  things  necessary  to  physical  efficiency — 
is  just  as  poor  on  an  income  of  two  dollars  a  day  as  a  family 
with  an  income  of  fifty  cents  a  day  where  the  necessities  of 
physical  efficiency  can  be  procured  for  seventy-five  cents  a 
day. 

Whenever  the  income  of  a  family  is  so  low  that  it  does  not 
make  possible  the  maintenance  of  all  its  members  in  a  state 
of  efficiency,  and  there  is  a  lack  of  any  of  the  things  essential 
to  the  attainment  of  that  end,  there  is  poverty.  When  the 
income  falls  so  low  that  it  must  be  augmented  by  public 
or  private  charity,  we  have  the  development  of  poverty 
to  pauperism.  This  condition  is  poverty  at  its  worst.  Pau- 

30 


POVERTY  31 

perism  is  the  last  refuge  of  the  weak,  the  aged,  the  sick  and 
infirm,  and  other  victims  of  the  human  struggle. 

The  extent  of  poverty:  There  is  no  way  of  obtaining  a 
very  accurate  measure  of  the  amount  of  poverty  existing 
hi  any  city  or  in  any  nation.  The  extensive  statistical  work 
of  the  United  States  Census  Bureau  throws  very  little  light 
on  American  poverty.  Practically  the  only  useful  data  avail- 
able have  been  gathered  by  students  and  social  workers  in 
private  investigation  or  are  contained  in  the  reports  of  public 
and  private  charities. 

For  England  the  investigations  of  Mr.  Charles  Booth 
in  London  and  Mr.  B.  S.  Rowntree  hi  York  are  the  most 
illuminating  sources  of  information.  Mr.  Booth  found  that 
of  the  population  of  London  about  30  per  cent  was  living 
below  the  poverty  line,  and  in  York  Mr.  Rowntree  found 
27.8  per  cent  hi  poverty,  and  that  in  1899,  a  year  when 
trade  was  more  than  usually  good.  The  standard  of  living 
in  America  is  a  little  higher  than  the  English  standard. 
Therefore,  the  poverty  line  must  be  set  a  little  higher  here 
than  hi  England  to  make  any  comparison  of  value.  If  this 
be  done,  there  is  little  or  no  evidence  that  conditions  here 
are  much  better  than  hi  England.  During  the  year  1903 
the  public  authorities  in  Boston  aided  136,000  persons,  or 
more  than  20  per  cent  of  the  population.  The  value  of 
these  figures  is  greatly  impaired  by  the  fact  that  we  have 
no  means  of  ascertaining  how  many  duplications  they  con- 
tain. That  the  number  of  such  duplications  is  considerable 
will  not  be  doubted  by  anyone  who  is  at  all  familiar  with 
the  subject.  On  the  other  hand,  the  figures  do  not  take  into 
account  the  large  number  of  persons  relieved  by  voluntary 
philanthropic  agencies  and  private  individuals.  That  these 
would  more  than  cancel  the  number  of  duplications  hi  the 
statistics  of  public  relief  is  beyond  question.  So  we  get 
the  startling  fact  that  at  least  20  per  cent  of  the  population 
of  the  city  of  Boston  reached  the  level  of  pauperism  in  the 
year  1903.  Of  course,  the  number  of  poor  persons,  that  is, 
persons  whose  income  was  insufficient  to  provide  the  things 
necessary  to  the  maintenance  of  efficiency,  was  very  much 
higher.'  By  no  means  do  all  who  are  poor  apply  for  charity. 
Self-respect  keeps  many  who  are  desperately  poor  from 
doing  so. 


32  ELEMENTS   OF   SOCIALISM 

It  is  estimated  by  Robert  Hunter  that  in  our  large  cities 
there  are  rarely  less  than  25  per  cent  of  the  people  in  poverty. 
Studies  of  unemployment  tend  to  confirm  this  estimate. 
Fully  30  per  cent,  of  the  wage-earners  are  unemployed  for  a 
portion  of  the  year,  their  incomes  are  irregular  and  they  are 
therefore  extremely  liable  to  fall  below  the  poverty  line. 
To  unemployment  must  be  added  the  disability  of  wage- 
earners  by  sickness  and  accident.  The  eminent  authority  on 
vital  statistics,  William  Farr,  estimates  that  for  every  death 
two  persons  are,  on  an  average,  seriously  ill,  and  three  per- 
sons so  ill  as  to  require  medical  attention.1  Dr.  Farr  was 
one  of  the  greatest,  if  not  the  greatest,  of  all  the  statisticians 
of  history,  and  his  estimate  was  based  upon  an  exhaustive 
study  of  the  mortality  and  morbidity  experience  of  the 
United  Kingdom.  As  Professor  Irving  Fisher  remarks, 
there  is  every  reason  to  believe  that  Farr's  conclusion  is 
nearly  as  valid  as  when  he  wrote,  about  forty  years  ago.3 
If,  then,  we  apply  Farr's  estimate  to  the  United  States,  in 
which  about  1,500,000  persons  die  each  year,  we  get  the 
startling  result  that  something  like  3,000,000  persons  in 
the  United  States  are  at  all  times  seriously  ill.  Of  course, 
we  have  to  be  cautious  in  thus  attempting  to  apply  figures 
based  upon  British  conditions  a  generation  ago  to  the  United 
States  of  the  present  day.  Still,  Professor  Fisher,  after 
checking  the  result  in  various  ways,  concludes  that  the  esti- 
mate based  upon  Farr's  crude  rule  is  a  fairly  conservative 
one.3 

In  1900,  of  the  total  population  of  known  ages  in  Con- 
tinental United  States  the  age-group  twenty  to  sixty-four 
years  inclusive  constituted  51.5  per  cent.  Assuming  that 
percentage  to  have  been  about  the  same  in  1910,  there  were 
in  that  year  47,365,717  persons  between  the  ages  of  twenty 
and  sixty-four  years,  inclusive.  Mr.  Edward  Bunnell 
Phelps,  editor  of  The  American  Underwriter,  and  one  of 
the  best  statistical  authorities  in  America,  has  calculated 
that  Professor  Fisher's  estimate  of  3,000,000  seriously  ill 
is  too  conservative;  that  there  are  at  least  that  number  of 
persons  in  the  United  States  between  twenty  and  sixty- 

1  Farr,  Vital  Statistics,  pp.  512-513. 

8  Report  on  National  Vitality,  by  Professor  Irving  Fisher,  p.  34. 

*  Fisher,  op.  tit. 


POVERTY 


33 


four  years  of  age,  inclusive,  ill  enough  to  require  medical 
attendance.  And  these  years,  it  will  be  noted,  are  the  most 
important  working  years.  In  furnishing  this  estimate  to 
the  present  writers,  Mr.  Phelps  calls  attention  to  the  fact 
that  some  seven  years  ago  one  of  our  very  best  statistical 
authorities  tabulated  the  number  and  percentages  of  Odd 
Fellows  reported  as  sick  in  twenty-nine  different  States, 
and  found  that  of  the  total  membership  of  that  organization 
in  those  States  an  average  of  7.85  per  cent,  were  sick.  One 
of  the  large  health  and  accident  insurance  companies  pub- 
lishes a  carefully  tabulated  statement  which  shows  that  on 
an  average  ten  per  cent,  of  its  policy-holders  between  the 
ages  of  twenty  and  sixty-four  years,  inclusive,  are  sufficiently 
ill  to  warrant  the  payment  of  sickness  claims.  Dr.  Farr's 
estimate  that  2,000,000  in  the  United  Kingdom  are  ill  enough 
to  require  medical  attention  was  equivalent  to  saying  that 
that  6.3  per  cent,  of  the  total  population  was  sick.  The 
medical  director  of  another  large  health  and  accident  com- 
pany estimated  that  hi  the  United  States,  on  an  average, 
fully  5  per  cent,  of  all  persons  in  the  age-group  named  are 
ill  enough  to  need  medical  attention.  If  we  average  these 
several  estimates  and  apply  that  average  to  the  population 
in  the  age-group  named,  the  result  is  almost  startling: 


ESTIMATES  OF  HABITUAL  ILLNESS  IN  UNITED  STATES 


BASIS  OF  ESTIMATE. 

Popu- 
lation, Ages 
20-64. 

Probable 
No.  of  Cases 
of  Sickness. 

Odd  Fellows'  experience,  7.85%  of  

47,365,717 
47,365,717 
47,365,717 
47,365,717 

3,718,209 
4,736,572 
2,368,286 
2,984,040 

Health  Company's  experience,  10%  of  

Medical  Director's  estimate,  5%  of  

Dr.  Farr's  figures,  6.3%  of  

Total  number  of  sick  persons  estimated  according  to  the  average  of 
the  four  estimates  .  .  . 

3.451,777 

It  would  seem,  therefore,  that,  on  an  average,  at  least 
3,000,000  persons  between  the  ages  of  twenty  and  sixty-four 
are  sick.  Not  all  of  these  are  of  the  working  class,  for 
the  fires  of  fever  burn  in  mansion  and  hovel.  Many 
are  wealthy,  many  are  of  the  professional  class.  How  many 


34  ELEMENTS   OF   SOCIALISM 

are  bread-winners  with  families  dependent  upon  them  we 
do  not  know.  Probably  not  less  than  1,500,000.  We  do 
know  that  diseases  of  all  kinds,  and  especially  the  most 
dangerous,  like  tuberculosis  and  pneumonia,  are  more 
prevalent  among  the  wage-earners  than  among  any  other 
class.1  It  is  perfectly  obvious,  therefore,  that  disease 
greatly  adds  to  the  poverty  of  the  masses.  According  to  Mr. 
Hunter  there  were  in  1904  at  least  10,000,000  persons  in 
poverty  in  the  United  States.  There  is  no  evidence  that 
poverty  is  diminishing.  All  the  organized  charities  are  con- 
stantly enlarging  their  scope,  and  are  pressed  to  the  limit 
of  their  capacity  in  relieving  misery.  The  cry  of  helplessness 
which  ascends  from  our  great  organized  agencies  for  phil- 
anthropic relief  is  appalling. 

The  pauper:  The  greater  part  of  the  families  living  in 
poverty  do  not  become  paupers.  They  strive  to  maintain 
their  self-respect.  They  struggle  bravely  to  increase  their 
incomes,  and  by  small  economies  manage  to  avoid  applying 
for  relief.  Even  the  very  poor  will  sacrifice  part  of  their 
meagre  incomes  to  help  their  neighbors  and  friends  tide 
over  a  period  of  exceptional  distress  and  to  save  them  from 
becoming  paupers 

But  the  typical  pauper  has  lost  the  self-respect  of  poverty. 
Take  the  pauperism  of  the  tramp,  for  example.  The  tramp 
is  not  necessarily  unhappy,  nor  does  he  suffer  keenly.  He 
cheerfully  relies  upon  his  stronger  neighbors,  or  upon  organ- 
ized charities,  to  keep  him  from  starvation.  This  form  of 
chronic  pauperism  is  a  disease  of  character,  more  hopeless 
than  crime  itself.  But  it  cannot  be  denied  that  capitalism 
puts  a  premium  on  this  parasitic  life.  The  tramp  on  the 
whole  has  an  easier  life  and  is  often  much  better  fed  than  the 
hard-working  laborer.  It  is  estimated  by  Mr.  James  Forbes, 
Director  of  the  National  Association  for  the  Prevention  of 
Mendicancy,  that  there  are  not  less  than  250,000  such  tramps 
in  the  United  States  The  tragedy  of  this  aspect  of  the 
problem  lies  in  the  fact  that,  very  often,  the  most  promising 
and  healthy  boys  of  the  working  class  find  their  way  into 
the  ranks  of  trampdom.  The  monotony  of  the  average  wage- 
earner's  life,  and  the  periodic  unemployment  which  destroys 
ambition  and  thrift,  are  perhaps  mainly  responsible  for  this. 

1  Cf.  Fisher,  op.  tit.,  p.  22. 


POVERTY  35 

Another  form  of  chronic  pauperism,  closely  allied  to  that 
of  the  tramp,  but  differing  from  it  in  important  respects,  is 
that  of  the  shiftless  and  inefficient  families  who  are  always 
dependent  upon  public  and  private  charity.  If  there  is  a 
man  at  the  head  of  the  family  he  is  generally  unemployed, 
even  in  times  when  there  is  relatively  little  unemployment. 
The  truth  is  that  he  is  unemployable.  The  cause  may  be 
inefficiency  and  inability  to  apply  himself  to  any  task,  how- 
ever simple,  or  it  may  be  sickness,  or  drunkenness,  which 
is  itself  a  form  of  sickness.  Or  the  cause  of  his  failure 
may  be  the  characteristic  which  we  call  laziness.  But  lazi- 
ness is  probably  always  a  result  of  defective  conditions  closely 
allied  to  poverty,  and  rarely  or  never  the  primary  cause  of 
poverty.  Back  of  the  inertia,  lack  of  ambition  and  staying 
power  which  manifest  themselves  in  what  we  call  laziness 
are  the  untoward  conditions  born  of  poverty,  such  as  mal- 
nutrition, neglect  of  disease,  lack  of  training,  failure  to 
discover  in  the  formative  years  of  life  the  natural  aptitudes 
of  the  boy  who  thus  develops  into  the  pauper.  How  many 
families  of  this  class  there  are  we  have  no  means  of  ascer- 
taining in  the  present  chaotic  state  of  our  statistics  of  relief. 
That  the  number  is  frightfully  large  is  certain.  They  go 
from  one  charitable  agency  to  another  until  they  have  gone 
the  entire  round,  and  then  they  begin  the  circuit  anew. 

To  these  classes  of  paupers  who  are  the  victims  of  moral 
deficiencies,  diseases  of  character  which  flourish  in  capital- 
ist society,  must  be  added  the  large  class  whose  pauperism 
is  less  directly  the  result  of  moral  disease,  but  is  the  result 
of  old  age,  physical  infirmity  due  to  disease  and  accident, 
the  idiotic,  the  insane,  the  widowed  and  orphaned.  There 
are  more  than  a  quarter  of  a  million  such  men,  women  and 
children  living  in  institutions  at  the  public  expense,  in  addi- 
tion to  the  vast  number  supported  outside  by  public  and 
private  philanthropy.  Altogether,  pauperism  presents  an 
appalling  picture  of  human  wreckage. 

Poverty  and  the  child:  Nowhere  are  the  ill  effects  of 
poverty  more  strikingly  manifest  than  in  the  lives  of  the 
children  of  the  poor.  During  the  period  of  rapid  growth 
in  mind  and  body  poverty  creates  an  environment  for  the 
child  which  robs  it  of  its  chance  of  a  full  and  healthy  develop- 
ment, without  which  an  efficient  manhood  or  womanhood 


36  ELEMENTS   OF   SOCIALISM 

will  be  impossible.  Robbed  of  physical  and  intellectual 
opportunities  in  the  most  important  years  of  all,  the  child 
of  poverty  is  heavily  burdened  in  the  race  of  life. 

It  is  a  well-known  fact  that  the  death  rate  among  the  poor 
is  very  much  higher  than  among  the  well-to-do.  This  is 
especially  true  of  the  infantile  death  rate.  Dr.  Charles  R. 
Drysdale,  an  eminent  authority,  declared  some  years  ago 
that  the  death  rate  of  infants  among  the  rich  was  not  more 
than  8  per  cent.,  while  among  the  very  poor  it  was  often 
as  high  as  40  per  cent.  In  aristocratic  Brookline,  Mass.,  the 
death  rate  of  children  under  one  year  per  1,000  births  in  the 
year  1900  was  96.9,  while  in  Fall  River,  an  industrial  town 
in  the  same  State,  it  was  260.2.  Yet  the  experts  say  that, 
upon  the  whole,  the  babies  of  the  poor  are  just  as  strong 
and  healthy  at  birth  as  those  of  the  rich,  and  that  post- 
natal, rather  than  pre-natal,  conditions  are  responsible  for 
the  terrible  difference  in  the  death  rate.  Except  for  poverty 
and  other  evils  resulting  from  capitalism,  there  is  no  apparent 
reason  why  the  death  rate  of  babies  anywhere  in  the  United 
States  should  be  materially  higher  than  in  Brookline.  This 
means  that  in  the  prosperous  year  of  1900  more  than  200,000 
babies  under  one  year  of  age  needlessly  died  in  the  United 
States.  Not  all  were  victims  of  poverty,  of  course,  but 
a  vast  majority  were  victims  of  poverty,  ignorance,  lack  of 
care  and  other  evils  which  appear  to  be  inseparable  from 
capitalist  society. 

Terrible  as  these  figures  are,  they  by  no  means  represent 
the  worst,  evils  of  poverty  as  it  affects  the  child.  At  least 
the  suffering  of  those  who  die  in  infancy  is  of  short  duration. 
Death  is  all  too  often  an  escape  from  long  continued  priva- 
tion and  suffering.  Recent  investigations  in  this  country 
and  in  Great  Britain  have  revealed  the  fact  that  an  alarming 
number  of  poor  children  of  school  age  are  chronically  under- 
fed and  otherwise  neglected.  Victims  of  malnutrition  and 
diseases  incidental  to  malnutrition,  an  alarming  percentage 
of  the  children  in  our  public  and  parochial  schools  are  not 
only  backward  in  their  studies,  but  as  a  result  of  the  com- 
bination of  their  physical  and  mental  disadvantages  they 
are  continually  augmenting  the  ranks  of  the  inefficient  who 
fall  into  pauperism,  the  shiftless,  the  intemperate,  the  vicious, 
the  lazy  and  unemployable. 


POVERTY  37 

Closely  related  to  these  conditions  is  the  evil  of  child 
labor.  Of  the  great  army  of  children  employed  in  mines, 
factories,  workshops,  street  trades  and  farming  occupations, 
the  vast  majority  are  victims  of  poverty.  That  a  large  num- 
ber of  such  children  come  from  families  who  manage  to 
keep  slightly  above  the  line  of  poverty  is  indisputable,  but 
it  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  very  often  such  families  main- 
tain that  position  only  by  adding  the  wages  of  the  children 
to  those  of  the  adult  bread-winners.  Where  a  child  earns 
two  dollars  a  week,  for  instance,  that  sum  may  mean  the 
difference  between  staying  above  the  poverty  line  or  falling 
below  it.  It  may  mean  the  difference  between  living  in  a 
hovel  on  a  mean  street  where  it  is  hard  to  be  "respectable," 
and  living  in  a  better  neighborhood.  One  terrible  fact  is 
that  the  children  who  are  forced  thus  early  into  the  labor 
market  are  the  children  least  fitted  for  it.  Child  labor  is 
quite  unnecessary  in  this  age  of  marvellously  productive 
machinery  and  unemployed  adults.  But  if  it  were  necessary 
for  little  children  to  labor  at  all,  those  chosen  for  labor  should 
be  the  strongest  and  best  fitted  to  bear  the  strain.  But  the 
strongest  and  best  developed  children  are  the  sons  and 
daughters  of  the  rich  and  well-to-do  classes,  and  these  are 
never  torn  from  the  playgrounds  to  enter  the  factories  and 
mines  or  to  face  the  perils  of  the  street  trades.  It  is  always 
the  children  of  the  poor  who  are  forced  into  the  labor  market, 
and  the  poorer  the  family  the  more  necessary  becomes  the 
income  derivable  from  the  labor  of  its  children.  Thus  child 
labor  is  a  link  hi  a  chain  of  vicious  circumstance.  The 
child  whose  infant  years  were  spent  in  an  environment 
which  weakened  it  physically  and  so  sapped  the  foundations 
of  all  strength,  mental  and  moral  as  well  as  physical,  and 
whose  years  of  school  life  continued  the  cruel  process,  is 
subject  to  the  further  weakening  of  all  that  makes  for  strength 
of  body,  mind  and  character. 

The  prevention  of  child  labor:  It  is  manifestly  impossible 
to  end  child  labor  by  appealing  to  the  parents  of  the  children. 
The  pressure  of  poverty  forces  them  to  send  the  boy  or  girl 
to  work.  Meagre  though  the  wage  of  the  child  may  be,  it 
is  often  an  important  item  in  the  family  budget.  It  is  vain 
to  urge  that  the  child  becomes  a  competitor  of  his  father, 
that  child  labor  leads  to  low  wages  for  adult  workers.  The 


38  ELEMENTS   OF  SOCIALISM 

parents  know  that.  But  they  also  know  that  the  process 
is  not  an  immediate  one,  that  the  employment  of  the  indi- 
vidual child  does  not  immediately  and  directly  reduce  the 
wages  of  the  particular  adult  worker.  The  process  is  a  slow 
and  indirect  one,  subtly  hidden  in  the  complex  mechanism 
of  capitalist  production.  The  wage  of  the  child,  on  the  other 
hand,  is  a  direct  and  immediate  gain.  It  means  increased 
comfort  at  once.  Likewise,  it  is  useless  to  appeal  to  the 
employers  to  put  an  end  to  child  labor.  So  long  as  child 
labor  appears  profitable  the  capitalist  will  not  end  it  in 
response  to  appeals  for  sympathy  for  the  child.  In  com- 
petitive industry  the  most  kindly  employer  must  take  all 
the  advantages  for  profit  making  which  his  competitor 
takes  or  go  out  of  business;  in  industries  wholly  or  partially 
monopolized  the  incessant  demand  of  the  stockholders  for 
dividends  forces  the  directors  and  managers  to  employ 
every  profitable  device  and  method. 

To  stop  child  labor,  then,  legislation  is  resorted  to.  Every 
attempt  to  enact  such  legislation  is  bitterly  opposed  by  those 
who  profit  from  child  labor.  The  laws  when  enacted  are 
flagrantly  violated.  Still,  despite  all  difficulties,  something 
has  been  done  in  the  direction  of  checking  the  worst  abuses. 
The  Socialist  favors  every  effort  to  prevent  child  labor  by 
legislation,  and  nearly  every  Socialist  party  in  the  world  de- 
mands the  prohibition  of  the  labor  of  all  children  under 
sixteen  years  of  age.  But  the  Socialist  sees  in  child  labor 
only  another  symptom  of  social  disease  inseparable  from 
the  capitalist  system,  and  believes  the  disease  to  be  remedi- 
able only  through  the  socialization  of  production  and  ex- 
change. 

Poverty  and  old  age :  One  of  the  most  tragic  phases  of  the 
problem  of  poverty  is  that  of  the  aged  poor.  After  a  life- 
time of  hard  work  thousands  of  sober  and  industrious  men 
and  women  pass  the  years  of  old  age,  when  they  are  no 
longer  able  to  work,  in  destitution,  dependent  either  upon 
charitable  agencies,  or  upon  relatives  who  by  contributing  to 
the  support  of  their  dependent  relatives  diminish  their  oppor- 
tunities to  save  a  competency  for  their  own  old  age.  Obvi- 
ously, there  must  be  something  radically  wrong  with  a  social 
system  which  does  not  make  it  possible  for  a  worker  after 
forty  years  or  more  of  industry  to  live  comfortably  for  ten, 


POVERTY  39 

fifteen  or  twenty  years  when  he  is  no  longer  able  to  work. 
Thrift  is  no  remedy  for  the  evil,  and  it  is  useless  to  argue 
that  the  workers  should  save  enough  to  keep  them  hi  their 
old  age.  That  is  possible  in  some  cases.  It  is  a  fact  that 
many  of  the  aged  poor  might  have  been  enjoying  comfort 
had  they  been  prudent  and  frugal  in  early  life.  But  the 
average  wage-earner  does  not  earn  more  than  enough  to 
maintain  himself  and  family  in  efficiency,  even  if  every 
penny  of  his  earnings  is  wisely  directed  to  that  end.  For 
the  average  wage-earner  saving  is  only  possible  at  the  expense 
of  efficiency,  either  that  of  himself  or  some  member  of 
the  family.  Saving  under  such  conditions  means  stinting, 
either  by  reducing  the  amount  or  lowering  the  quality  of 
food,  clothing  or  education,  or  by  reducing  the  comforts 
and  advantages  arising  from  good  housing  accommodations. 

To  those  who  have  been  accustomed  to  live  in  relative 
comfort  dependence  in  old  age  involves  the  most  intense 
suffering  and  humiliation.  Of  all  the  fears  which  beset  the 
working  class  the  fear  of  a  beggarly  old  age  is  perhaps 
the  most  generally  felt  and  the  most  dreaded.  To  avoid 
its  realization  men  and  women  of  the  working  class  sacrifice 
much  present  comfort,  and  many  of  the  necessary  requisites 
of  an  efficient  life,  in  order  that  they  may  have  something 
upon  which  to  rely  in  their  old  age.  Even  when  a  little 
is  saved  in  this  manner,  the  difficulties  of  safe  investment  and 
the  dangers  of  loss  are  great. 

Evil  results  of  poverty:  Poverty  is  not  only  an  evil  hi 
itself,  but  it  is  the  direct  cause  of  many  other  evils.  Crime 
is  to  a  very  large  extent  the  result  of  poverty.  The  com- 
monest of  all  forms  of  crime  is  theft,  and  it  is  perfectly  well 
known  that  robbery,  burglary,  pickpocketing,  and  other 
crimes  of  this  class  increase  with  every  depression  in  trade. 
As  wages  decrease  and  the  number  of  the  unemployed 
increases  the  number  of  cases  of  larceny  of  all  kinds  grows. 
There  is  more  theft  in  winter  than  in  summer.  In  general 
it  may  be  said  that  whenever  the  conditions  of  life  become 
harder  than  usual  for  the  poorer  classes  crime  increases. 
Crime  is  the  reaction  of  the  relatively  strong  man  to  economic 
failure  and  oppression,  just  as  pauperism  is  the  refuge  of  the 
weak. 

While  crime  is  by  no  means  confined  to  the  male  sex,  the 


40  ELEMENTS   OF   SOCIALISM 

true  female  counterpart  of  crime  in  the  male  is  prostitution. 
The  life  of  a  prostitute  is  not  attractive  and  few  enter  it 
from  choice.  The  life  involves  social  ostracism  and  loss 
of  self-respect,  together  with  the  abandonment  of  all  that 
women  value  most  highly.  Except  in  the  cases  of  a  relatively 
small  number  of  moral  degenerates,  the  ranks  of  those  who 
depend  upon  prostitution  for  a  living  are  recruited  from  those 
who  have  failed  otherwise  to  maintain  themselves.  Wherever 
investigations  have  been  made  into  this  subject  a  very  close 
relation  has  been  shown  to  exist  between  low  wages  and 
irregular  employment  and  prostitution.  Universally,  the 
proportion  of  prostitutes  who  find  their  way  into  the  ranks 
of  those  that  walk  in  shame  from  such  poorly  paid  occupa- 
tions as  those  of  dressmakers,  milliners,  saleswomen,  button- 
hole makers,  cloakmakers  and  the  like  is  very  large.  What 
is  even  more  significant  is  that  every  depression  of  trade 
affecting  these  and  similar  occupations  in  the  form  of  unem- 
ployment or  decreased  wages  is  immediately  followed  by  a 
large  increase  in  the  number  of  prostitutes.  At  the  National 
Purity  Congress  in  1895  the  number  of  public  prostitutes 
in  the  United  States  was  estimated  at  230,000.  Other 
estimates  are  much  higher,  one  investigator  placing  the 
number  at  600,000.*  Whatever  the  number  may  be,  it  is 
probably  safe  to  say  that  five-sixths  of  all  public  prostitutes 
are  victims  of  poverty. 

The  relation  of  poverty  to  disease  has  already  been  suffi- 
ciently noted  for  our  present  purpose.  It  is  not  only  one  of  the 
most  active  causes  of  such  diseases  as  tuberculosis  and 
pneumonia,  but  it  is  an  important  factor  in  the  causation 
of  that  form  of  disease  which  is  so  often  mistakenly  treated 
as  a  crime,  drunkenness.  It  is  often  said  that  drunkenness 
is  a  principal  cause  of  poverty.  That  it  frequently  appears 
as  the  direct  and  immediate  cause  is  true,  but  it  must  not 
be  forgotten  that  it  is  itself,  in  many  cases,  the  product  of 
poverty  and  its  concomitant  conditions,  overwork  to  the 
point  of  exhaustion,  malnutrition  and  physical  weakness, 
crushed  hope  and  desperation  of  despair.  Here  as  in  so 
many  other  directions  poverty  tends  ever  to  perpetuate 
itself.  That  is  its  worst  feature 

Causes  of  poverty:  Not  so  long  ago  it  was  very  generally 
1Cf.  Bliss,  Encyclopedia  of  Social  Reforms.    Art.  "Prostitution." 


POVERTY  41 

contended  that  poverty  was  almost  entirely  due  to  the 
faults  of  the  poor  themselves,  to  moral  defects  in  the  indi- 
vidual rather  than  to  defects  in  the  economic  and  social 
environment.  That  view  has  been  abandoned.  Dr.  Edward 
T.  Devine,  for  example,  admits  that  "the  tradition  which 
many  hold  that  the  condition  of  poverty  is  ordinarily  and 
as  a  matter  of  course  to  be  explained  by  personal  faults  of 
the  poor  themselves  is  no  longer  tenable.  Strong  drink 
and  vice  are  abnormal,  unnatural  and  essentially  unat- 
tractive ways  of  spending  surplus  income."1  The  Socialist 
takes  the  same  view  of  the  problem  and  to  all  such  questions 
as  "Does  poverty  exist  because  people  are  shiftless,  lazy, 
intemperate,  dishonest  or  depraved,  or  because  they  have 
too  many  children?"  answers  with  a  vigorous  negative.  He 
agrees  with  Dr.  Devine  further  "that  personal  depravity 
is  as  foreign  to  any  sound  theory  of  the  hardships  of  our 
modern  poor  as  witchcra  t  or  demoniacal  possession;  that 
these  hardships  are  economic,  social,  transitional,  measurable, 
manageable."2  He  holds  that  all  foregoing  moral  distressful 
phenomena  are  the  direct  and  indirect  results  of  conditions 
arising  out  of  the  economic  system  and  inherent  in  its  very 
nature.  In  a  system  which  enables  a  relatively  few  owners 
to  appropriate  a  large  part  of  the  products  of  industry 
regardless  of  effort  on  their  own  part,  and  where  the  actual 
producers  can  rarely  take  more  than  sufficient  to  keep  them 
from  day  to  day  and  week  to  week,  poverty  is  inevitable. 

Charity  not  a  solution  of  the  problem :  Society  no  longer 
intentionally  permits  any  of  its  members  to  starve.  When 
extreme  poverty  confronts  us  an  attempt  is  usually  made  to 
relieve  it.  For  this  purpose  numerous  and  costly  organiza- 
tions exist,  and  in  addition  to  this  organized  charity  there 
is  a  large  amount  of  personal  effort  directed  to  the  same  end. 
The  effect  of  charity,  however  skillful  and  well-intentioned 
its  dispensers  may  be,  is  often  disastrous.  It  places  the 
individual  in  a  position  of  cringing  dependence  and  destroys 
self-respect  by  invading  the  privacy  of  the  home  to  make 
inquiries  which  are  necessary  to  prevent  imposition. 

But  apart  from  these  criticisms,  and  even  if  none  of  them 
were  true,  it  would  be  a  sufficient  criticism  to  make  of  the 

1  Charities  and  the  Commons,  Vol.  XIX,  p.  1104. 

2  Misery  and  Its  Causes,  by  Edward  T.  Devine,  p.  11. 


42  ELEMENTS   OF   SOCIALISM 

attitude  of  those  who  hold  that  charity  is  a  sufficient  solu- 
tion of  the  poverty  problem  to  point  out  the  confessed 
inability  of  our  charity  organizations  to  remove  more  than 
a  tithe  of  the  poverty  existing  in  society  under  normal  con- 
ditions. There  is  no  large  city  in  America  in  which  any  or 
all  of  the  philanthropic  agencies  are  or  have  ever  been  in  a 
position  to  raise  sufficient  money  to  raise  above  the  poverty 
line  all  who  have  fallen  below  it.  This  fact  was  shown  in  a 
striking  manner  during  the  discussion,  in  1907,  of  the  report 
of  the  New  York  State  Conference  of  Charities  and  Correc- 
tions of  the  committee  of .  that  body  on  wages  and  the 
standard  of  living.  The  committee  reported  that  the  lowest 
amount  upon  which  a  family  of  five  could  be  supported  in 
decency  and  health  in  New  York  City  was  about  eight 
hundred  dollars  a  year.  Commenting  upon  the  fact  that 
many  thousands  of  families  have  a  total  income  of  ten  dollars 
a  week  or  less,  and  that  after  allowances  are  made  for  sick- 
ness, holidays  and  occasional  unemployment,  the  total  income 
of  such  families  does  not  exceed  four  hundred  and  fifty 
dollars  a  year  at  best,  Dr.  Devine  frankly  admitted  that  it 
would  be  impossible  for  organized  charity  to  make  up  the 
deficiency  for  all  such  families,  and  so  place  them  just  above 
the  poverty  line.  Such  a  policy  would,  he  declared,  lead  to 
financial  bankruptcy.1  In  other  words,  the  charitable 
societies  cannot  hope  to  add  to  the  wages  of  those  workers 
whose  incomes  are  inadequate  to  maintain  themselves  and 
families  at  the  point  of  efficiency,  enough  to  enable  them 
to  do  so.  Therefore,  there  must  still  be  poverty  which 
organized  charity  can  neither  promise  nor  seriously  hope  to 
remove. 

The  Socialist  view  of  poverty:  Any  open-minded  Socialist 
must  recognize  that  some  of  the  evils  of  poverty  can  be 
relieved  without  disturbing  the  present  social  order.  Muni- 
cipal milk  stations  for  the  supply  of  milk  for  infants,  free 
meals  for  school  children,  medical  inspection,  child  labor 
laws,  farm  colonies  for  the  unemployed — these  and  a  multitude 
of  similar  reforms  are  possible  within  the  capitalist  system. 
But  so  long  as  capitalism  remains  and  wages  are  determined 
by  competitive  methods  poverty  will  continue  to  blight  the 
world.  It  will  be  removed  only  when  the  basic  industries 

1  Charities  and  the  Commons,  Vol.  XIX,  p.  1083. 


POVERTY  43 

have  been  brought  under  social  ownership  and  control. 
So,  while  rejoicing  in  all  measures  of  amelioration,  the  Social- 
ist concentrates  his  attention  upon  abolishing  the  funda- 
mental causes  of  poverty,  trusting  that  the  effects  will  dis- 
appear when  the  causes  are  removed. 


SUMMARY 

1.  A  family  is  in  poverty  when  its  income  is  insufficient  to  provide 
those  things  which  are  necessary  to  maintain  the  efficiency  of  its  mem- 
bers in  a  given  time  and  place. 

2.  The  effects  of  poverty  are  most  evident  in  the  lives  of  children. 
Under  conditions  of  poverty  the  infantile  death  rate  is  very  high  and 
the  growth  of  the  minds  and  bodies  of  children  is  unpaired. 

3.  Poverty  is  a  direct  cause  of  crime,  prostitution,   disease  and 
intemperance. 

4.  Charity  is  entirely  inadequate  for  the  relief  of  poverty,  and  con- 
tributes nothing  toward  its  cure. 

QUESTIONS 

1.  Distinguish  between  poverty  and  pauperism. 

2.  What  basis  have  we  for  estimating  the  extent  of  poverty? 

3.  What  are  some  of  the  causes  of  pauperism? 

4.  Discuss  the  causes  and  the  social  effects  of  child  labor. 

5.  Show  how  poverty  acts  as  a  cause  of  crime. 

6.  What  is  the  social  effect  of  charity? 

7.  What  is  the  Socialist  attitude  toward  poverty? 

LITERATURE 

Devine,  E.  T.,  Misery  and  Its  Causes. 

Fisher,  Irving,  Report  on  National  Vitality,  Its  Wastes  and  Conserva- 
tion. 

Hobson,  John  A.,  Problems  of  Poverty. 

Hunter,  Robert,  Poverty. 

Rowntree,  B.  S.,  Poverty,  a  Town  Study. 

Spargo,  John,  The  Bitter  Cry  of  the  Children.  The  Common  Sense  of 
the  Milk  Question,  Chaps.  I- VI. 


CHAPTER  V 

LEISURE   AND   LUXURY 

Capitalist  and  manager:  The  capitalist  as  such  has  nothing 
to  do  with  the  management  of  the  industry  in  which  he 
holds  stock.  As  a  capitalist  owner  of  a  textile  mill  he  need 
not  know  the  difference  between  gingham  and  worsted. 
He  may  be  a  child  or  an  idiot.  If  he  does  useful  work  in  the 
management  of  the  industry,  as  capitalists  of  a  generation 
ago  often  did,  he  is  to  that  extent  a  laborer  and  is  entitled 
to  the  rewards  of  labor.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  he  usually 
gets  these  rewards  over  and  above  his  income  as  a  capitalist. 

The  shrewd  business  man  who  so  directs  an  undertaking 
that  it  yields  an  increasing  revenue  without  raising  prices 
or  lowering  wages  is  undoubtedly  performing  a  real  service 
for  society,  and  should  receive  a  salary  proportionate  to 
that  service.  But  when  the  gain  comes  through  monopoly, 
special  privilege,  injury  to  the  consumer  or  injury  to  the 
producer,  society  receives  no  benefit  for  which  it  should  be 
called  upon  to  make  any  payment.  The  business  man  who 
works  for  himself  and  against  the  interests  of  society  deserves 
no  consideration  and  no  reward. 

Socialists  do  not  wish  to  deny  to  the  real  captains  of 
industry  a  reward  equivalent  to  the  social  value  of  their 
share  in  production,  any  more  than  they  wish  to  deny  to 
the  least  efficient  laborer  the  equivalent  of  the  social  value 
of  his  share  in  production.  Socialists  do  charge,  however, 
that  even  the  salaries  of  those  engaged  in  the  management 
of  industry  as  it  is  at  present  conducted  are  not  proportioned 
to  the  share  of  the  recipients  in  production.  "To  him  that 
hath  shall  be  given"  seems  to  be  the  rule  to-day,  as  of  old. 
Men  who  have  wealth  or  influence  with  the  wealthy  can 
obtain  positions  with  salaries  far  in  excess  of  the  value  of  the 
services  rendered.  Capitalism  also  richly  rewards  services 
which  are  socially  undesirable  and  unnecessary.  Brokers, 

44 


LEISURE  AND  LUXURY      .  45 

speculators,  commission  merchants,  .corporation  lawyers, 
lobbyists,  and  many  other  groups  are  paid  large  salaries 
although  society  would  be  better  off  if  they  did  not  exist. 

Unearned  wealth:  The  incomes  of  capitalists  and  land- 
owners are  unearned.  They  bear  no  relation  whatever  to 
the  productivity  or  the  needs  of  those  who  receive  them. 
There  are  other  methods  of  getting  unearned  incomes,  such 
as  betting,  swindling,  begging  and  plain  robbery.  These 
methods  are  admittedly  dangerous,  demoralizing  and  crim- 
inal. But  any  form  of  unearned  income  is  regarded  as  socially 
harmful  by  the  Socialist,  except  where  it  takes  the  shape  of 
a  social  gift  for  the  maintenance  of  one  who  is  incapacitated 
from  labor.  The  unearned  income  of  the  capitalist  is  not 
a  social  gift,  but  a  sum  extorted  from  the  producers  through 
the  mechanism  of  our  industrial  system. 

Inheritance:  It  is  difficult  to  see  why  children,  distant 
relatives  or  strangers  should  inherit  the  wealth  of  a  deceased 
man  in  the  production  of  which  they  have  had  no  share. 
We  no  longer  recognize  the  right  of  inheritance  to  political 
offices  or  honors.  Hereditary  royalty,  nobility  or  dignity 
is  almost  universally  looked  upon  as  undesirable,  but  capital- 
ist society  upholds  the  much  more  dangerous  inheritance  of 
capital  with  the  same  unquestioning  faith  that  feudal  society 
had  in  hereditary  royalty.  The  fortune  accumulated  by  a 
man  of  ability  in  a  lifetime  of  honest  effort  may  be  inherited 
by  a  son  or  other  heir,  who,  despite  his  mediocre  ability, 
and  the  fact  that  he  renders  little  or  no  service  to  society, 
thereby  enjoys  all  the  benefits  of  wealth. 

It  is  not  the  inheritance  of  purely  personal  property  to 
which  the  Socialist  objects,  but  the  inheritance  of  capital, 
stocks  and  bonds  representing  ownership  and  control  of 
industry,  and  land  titles  which  confer  upon  their  owners 
the  power  to  absorb  part  of  the  wealth  of  society  in  the  form 
of  incomes  derived  from  the  exploitation  of  the  labor  and 
needs  of  others.  There  is  no  reason  why  society  should  assert 
the  ownership  of  those  forms  of  personal  property  which 
have  none  of  the  foregoing  characteristics,  except  in  such 
rare  and  exceptional  circumstances  as  might  lead  even  a 
capitalist  State  to  do  the  same. 

Advantages  of  wealth:  From  the  point  of  view  of  social 
power  it  is  the  ownership  and  control  of  industry  rather  than 


46  ELEMENTS   OF   SOCIALISM 

income  which  counts.  The  man  who  owns  can  control. 
But  aside  from  this  social  power  a  large  income  gives  advan- 
tages which  may  not  in  themselves  be  harmful  to  society, 
but  the  enjoyment  of  which  by  the  few  to  the  exclusion 
of  the  many  constitutes  a  social  injustice.  Among  these 
advantages  are  education,  travel,  luxurious  and  beautiful 
homes,  better  care  when  ill,  protection  of  childhood  and  old 
age.  The  man  of  wealth  is  free  to  seek  the  most  skill- 
ful physicians  and  the  most  healthful  climate.  He  need 
not  wait  for  complete  prostration  before  seeking  medical 
aid.  From  these  advantages  the  poor  man  is  practically 
debarred.  The  higher  death  rate  among  the  poor  than  among 
the  rich  is  a  matter  of  common  knowledge.  Among  10,000,- 
000  well-to-do  persons  the  number  of  yearly  deaths  is  prob- 
ably not  more  than  100,000;  among  the  best  paid  wage- 
earners  the  number  is  probably  not  less  than  150,000;  and 
among  the  poorest  paid  workers  the  number  is  probably  not 
less  than  SSC^OOO.1  Money  may  purchase  life  itself. 

The  privilege  of  being  able  to  devote  his  life  freely  to  the 
work  of  one's  choice,  regardless  of  its  income  yielding  power, 
is  inestimable.  Genius  is  not  necessarily  associated  with 
money-making  ability,  and  many  of  the  greatest  artists  and 
writers  have  been  able  to  develop  their  talents  only  through 
their  freedom  from  the  necessity  of  making  a  living. 

Previous  to  the  industrial  revolution  the  productivity  of 
society  was  insufficient  to  support  more  than  a  relatively 
few  in  comfort  and  to  afford  leisure  for  cultural  develop- 
ment. With  the  development  of  labor-saving  machinery 
it  becomes  possible,  for  the  first  time  in  history,  to  realize 
any  normal  and  healthy  desire  and  still  perform  a  just  share 
of  the  necessary  labor  of  society.  Sufficient  leisure  for  the 
development  of  talent  is  demonstrably  possible  for  all  in  a 
society  in  which  the  most  highly  developed  methods  of 
production  and  organization  are  fully  utilized.  Culture 
and  labor  need  not  be  divorced  in  modern  society. 

The  leisure  class :  The  existence  of  social  classes,  generally 
hereditary  in  character,  exempt  from  the  work  of  production 
and  thus  able  to  devote  themselves  exclusively  to  certain 
honorific  employments,  such  as  warfare,  politics  and  relig- 
ion, has  been  characteristic  of  every  age  since  the  end  of 

1  Poverty,  by  Robert  Hunter,  p.  144. 


LEISURE  AND   LUXURY  47 

primitive  communism.  These  classes  have  played  a  tre- 
mendous part  in  social  evolution,  for  without  them  culture 
and  civilization  could  hardly  have  been  developed  and  pre- 
served. The  Pericleian  Age  in  Greece,  for  example,  was 
only  possible  with  many  slaves  for  every  free  citizen. 

Under  capitalism  the  predominant  leisure  class  has  been 
placed  upon  an  entirely  new  basis,  that  of  wealth  regardless 
of  any  real  or  pretended  services  to  society.  This  class  is 
also  to  a  large  extent  hereditary  in  character.  It  maintains 
itself  by  the  exercise  of  its  power  of  control  over  the  means 
of  production  as  surely  as  did  the  nobility  of  feudal  times 
through  land  ownership.  Inheritance  of  capital  crystallizes 
class  distinctions  and  makes  equality  of  opportunity  impos- 
sible. The  inheritance  of  great  landed  estates  in  feudal 
times  carried  with  it  a  sense  of  responsibility  to  society,  and 
especially  to  the  serfs  and  peasants.  The  feudal  lords  at 
least  served  society  to  the  extent  of  assuming  the  risks  and 
responsibilities  of  warfare,  and  of  preserving,  in  conjunction 
with  the  church,  the  culture  and  civilization  of  the  past. 
But  this  new  leisure  class  performs  no  social  service  whatever. 
The  inheritance  of  capital  tends  to  perpetuate  a  class  having 
no  direct  contact  with  the  sources  of  its  income,  no  feeling 
of  social  responsibility  and  no  knowledge  of  the  life  of  the 
producing  class.  The  most  conspicuously  idle  and  extrava- 
gant of  the  capitalist  class,  those  who  do  not  perform  even 
the  most  perfunctory  directive  functions,  and  cannot  be 
considered  as  other  than  social  parasites,  live  on  incomes 
derived  from  inherited  capital.  Now  that  politics,  art, 
education,  and  even  military  protection,  are  possible  upon 
a  thoroughly  democratic  basis,  the  Socialist  sees  no  reason 
for  maintaining  in  luxury  a  social  class  which  does  not  and 
cannot  justify  its  existence  by  some  definite  social  service 
which  it  performs  with  peculiar  efficiency. 

Ostentatious  expenditure:  Wealth  in  the  form  of  capital 
gives  the  owner  power  over  the  lives  of  men.  Wealth  with 
large  income  enables  the  possessor  to  enjoy  comforts  and 
luxuries  denied  to  other  men,  and  the  possession  of  wealth, 
or  even  the  appearance  of  being  wealthy,  brings  honor  and 
social  prestige.  There  is  therefore  a  great  temptation  to 
spend  large  sums  ostentatiously  in  order  to  be  regarded  as 
rich,  rather  than  for  the  direct  pleasure  or  benefit  the 


48  ELEMENTS   OF   SOCIALISM 

expenditure  will  bring.  Expensive  dinners  and  balls,  ex- 
travagant houses,  furnishings  and  dress,  and  e\en  philan- 
thropy, are  frequently  attributable  to  the  desire  for  social 
prestige  and  honor.  Often  this  object  is  attained  by  the 
wearing  of  certain  forms  of  dress,  or  living  in  such  a  way  that 
productive  labor  is  impossible,  thereby  indicating  that  one 
belongs  to  a  class  wealthy  enough  to  be  free  from  labor. 
The  silk  hat,  the  monocle,  the  walking  stick  and  the  patent 
leather  boots  of  an  English  gentleman  are  neither  comfort- 
able nor  especially  useful,  but  it  is  plainly  evident  that  no 
one  could  do  an  hour's  honest  work  in  such  an  outfit.  In 
its  origin,  at  least,  that  fact  is  responsible  for  the  outfit. 

Ostentatious  expenditures  by  the  very  wealthy  indirectly 
help  to  protect  them  in  their  social  position.  In  the  effort 
to  share  in  the  social  homage  and  prestige  bestowed  upon 
rich  families  many  a  middle-class  family  imitates  these 
extravagances  to  the  point  of  financial  ruin,  and  so  is  effec- 
tually prevented  from  obtaining  real  power.  If  we  analyze 
our  expenses,  even  the  relatively  poor  among  us  will  find 
that  a  surprisingly  large  proportion  goes  for  ostentation, 
but  this  can  hardly  be  avoided.  As  long  as  class  distinctions 
are  so  great  it  is  practically  necessary  to  imitate  and  con- 
form, particularly  in  dress,  or  else  be  subject  to  ridicule. 
The  necessity  of  keeping  up  these  ostentatious  expenditures 
hi  order  to  maintain  appearances  constitutes  in  the  aggregate 
an  immense  social  loss.  If  it  were  not  for  the  social  necessity 
of  keeping  up  the  appearance  of  prosperity,  real  prosperity 
would  be  more  easily  obtained,  and  labor  could  be  applied 
to  a  greater  social  advantage.  The  pace  in  ostentatious 
expenditure  is  set  by  the  idle  rich  and  everyone  else  is  com- 
pelled to  live  as  nearly  as  possible  to  that  standard  under 
the  penalty  of  being  stamped  as  socially  inferior. 

The  servant  and  society:  The  productivity  of  labor  having 
increased  much  more  rapidly  than  wages,  the  socially  pro- 
ductive laborers  themselves  cannot  purchase  and  consume 
their  own  product.  Production  must  either  be  checked, 
therefore,  and  the  resulting  army  of  unemployed  supported 
by  charity,  or  the  non-producing  class  must  be  so  increased 
that  the  social  product  may  be  consumed.  The  servants 
and  retainers  of  capitalism  and  the  producers  of  certain 
kinds  of  luxuries  for  the  capitalist  class  perform  this  function 


LEISURE  AND  LUXURY  49 

by  assisting  the  capitalist  class  in  the  consumption  of  goods. 
At  the  same  time,  they  add  to  the  sum  of  personal  and 
social  satisfaction  which  the  owning  class  is  able  to  enjoy. 

It  may  well  be  questioned  whether  a  rational  society  would 
tolerate  the  existence  of  a  servant  class,  except  for  the  service 
of  the  sick  and  infirm.  Such  service  might  be  regarded  as  an 
occupation  of  peculiar  dignity  and  honor.  But  the  idea 
that  the  whole  life  of  one  human  being  should  be  spent  doing 
the  work  of  and  making  comfort  for  another  human  being 
capable  of  doing  it  for  himself  is  repellant  to  the  ideas  of 
freedom  and  equality.  Many  a  rich  idler  whose  life  is  of 
no  benefit  to  society  not  only  consumes  an  income  repre- 
senting the  labor  of  many  producers,  but  wastes  still  more 
on  the  employment  of  personal  servants.  The  rich  man 
must  have  his  valet  and  the  rich  woman  her  maid  to  assist 
them  in  dressing.  The  spectacle  of  one  healthy  person 
employing  another  healthy  person  to  button  his  shoes  or 
comb  her  hair,  as  the  case  may  be,  is  so  ludicrous  that  the 
parasitical  nature  of  these  forms  of  service  is  obvious.  But 
a  large  part  of  the  work  performed  by  the  servant  class  is 
none  the  less  parasitical  because  less  obviously  ludicrous. 

We  are  not  at  present  concerned  with  the  question  whether 
or  not  this  form  of  useless  labor  will  wholly  disappear  with 
the  coming  of  Socialism.  What  concerns  us  is  the  social 
waste  in  present  society  represented  by  the  servants  and 
retainers  of  the  capitalist  class.  It  is  true  that  a  large 
majority  of  those  engaged  in  ordinary  domestic  service 
are  employed  by  the  large  middle  class,  rather  than  by  the 
relatively  small  class  of  the  very  rich,  but  the  number  of 
servants  and  retainers  of  the  latter  class  is  greater  than  the 
entire  number  of  domestic  servants.  In  this  class  of  servants 
and  retainers  is  included  such  personal  servants  as  valets, 
footmen,  waiters,  and  the  like,  as  well  as  the  secretaries, 
private  tutors,  hired  "companions"  and  the  physicians  who 
confine  their  professional  service  to  the  wealthy  for  extrava- 
gant fees.  It  includes  also  the  editors,  publicists,  lawyers 
and  preachers  whose  energies  and  talents  are  devoted  to 
the  task  of  defending  the  present  social  order  for  pay.  The 
burden  of  the  capitalist  class  upon  the  producers  can  only 
be  realized  when  its  vast  army  of  servants  and  retainers  is 
taken  into  account.  From  an  economic  point  of  view,  the 


50  ELEMENTS  OF  SOCIALISM 

servant  and  the  retainer  are  producers  of  utilities  for  indi- 
viduals or  groups  of  individuals,  but  they  are  not  producers 
of  social  wealth.  Every  such  servant  or  retainer  means  one 
more  laborer  taken  from  social  production,  and  so  much 
more  work  to  be  done  by  the  producers  who  are  left. 

The  social  effect  of  luxury:  It  is  a  common  fallacy  that 
anything  which  "makes  work"  is  advantageous  to  labor. 
When  some  millionaire  indulges  in  a  particularly  wild  ex- 
travagance it  is  not  unusual  to  hear  it  said  that  he  is  per- 
forming a  social  service  by  "putting  money  into  circula- 
tion." It  might  as  well  be  said  that  a  vandal  who  amused 
himself  by  smashing  windows  was  a  social  benefactor  because 
he  caused  people  to  spend  more  money  and  made  work  for 
glass-blowers  and  glaziers,  as  that  any  good  results  from 
useless  expenditures  in  any  other  form.  Every  plate-glass 
window  has  been  produced  by  an  expenditure  of  human 
effort  and  its  unnecessary  destruction  means  so  much  social 
loss.  The  labor  of  society  consists  of  the  replacement  of 
goods  which  have  been  used  up  or  destroyed,  and  devising 
new  kinds  of  goods  which  will  add  to  human  efficiency  and 
happiness.  Waste  and  luxury  from  a  social  point  of  view 
mean  a  squandering  of  the  products  of  labor,  and  a  diverting 
of  productive  energy  to  useless  ends. 

The  fallacy  that  labor  spent  upon  the  production  of  luxuries 
which  are  an  exclusive  class  privilege  somehow  benefits  the 
laboring  class  arises  from  the  confusion  of  wealth  with  money. 
Real  wealth  consists  of  production  and  consumption  of  goods. 
Of  the  total  estimated  wealth  of  the  United  States,  gold, 
the  only  standard  money,  constitutes  little  more  than  one 
per  cent.  Its  value  depends  upon  its  exchangeability  for 
other  things.  The  real  social  effect  of  excessive  luxury  is 
the  destruction  of  social  wealth  in  the  accumulated  products 
of  labor  power.  If  a  man  with  an  income  of  a  million  dollars 
a  year  should  live  according  to  the  standard  of  an  Italian 
laborer,  his  income  would  be  quite  as  freely  circulated  as 
though  he  spent  it  all  on  steam  yachts,  palatial  dwellings 
or  jewels  for  courtesans.  This  money,  whether  invested 
or  deposited  in  banks,  would  be  in  constant  circulation. 

Degeneracy  as  the  result  of  great  wealth :  It  has  been  well 
said  that  society  rots  at  both  extremes;  the  rich  rot  from 
luxury  and  the  poor  rot  from  poverty.  Great  wealth  is  not 


LEISURE   AND   LUXURY  51 

an  unmixed  blessing.  Idleness  and  lack  of  social  respon- 
sibility combined  with  the  gratification  of  every  whim,  lead 
to  dissipation,  self-indulgence  and  other  evils  which  result 
in  the  demoralization  of  the  individual.  A  parasitic  existence, 
whether  in  the  plant  or  the  animal  kingdom,  or  in  human 
society,  brings  about  changes  in  the  organism  which  unfit 
it  for  any  further  independent  existence.  It  used  to  be  said 
that  a  family  passed  from  shirt  sleeves  to  shirt  sleeves  in 
three  generations,  and  perhaps  the  saying  was  to  a  certain 
extent  true  when  the  country  was  new  and  men  stood  more 
nearly  upon  their  own  merits.  But  at  present,  when  fortunes 
are  so  immense,  it  takes  little  ability  to  keep  them  together, 
and  the  degenerate  who  otherwise  would  be  earning  the 
minimum  wages  at  unskilled  labor,  or  be  in  the  care  of  some 
institution,  is  enabled  to  give  monkey  dinners  and  waste 
wealth  in  other  equally  foolish  ways,  and  even  then  is  unable 
to  materially  reduce  the  capital  which  he  has  inherited. 

A  few  such  individuals  might  be  kept  in  custodial  institu- 
tions, but  it  is  obvious  that  only  a  very  small  number  of 
the  most  flagrant  cases  could  be  thus  dealt  with.  The  only 
remedy  for  the  degeneracy  which  is  commonly  associated 
with  the  inheritance  of  immense  wealth  is  to  stop  producing 
degenerates  of  this  type.  This  can  be  done  by  abolishing 
the  conditions  which  permit  an  idle  class  to  live  in  luxury 
while  the  producing  class  languishes  in  poverty. 


52  ELEMENTS   OF   SOCIALISM 


SUMMARY 

1.  The  function  of  the  capitalist  as  such  needs  to  be  distinguished 
carefully  from  that  of  the  director  of  industry,  who  in  that  capacity 
is  a  producer. 

2.  The  inheritance  of  capital  perpetuates  class  distinctions  and  gives 
rise  to  a  group  of  capitalists  who  have  no  directive  functions. 

3.  Leisure  is  necessary  for  the  development  and  continuation  of 
civilization  and   culture.     Before  the  time  of  machine  production 
leisure  was  possible  only  to  a  few.    Now  it  could  become  possible  for  all. 

4.  Servants  and  retainers  of  the  rich  are  socially  unproductive  work- 
ers, and  a  burden  on  society. 

5.  Luxury  involves  social  loss,  and  the  diversion  of  labor  from  occupa- 
tions which  are  socially  productive. 


QUESTIONS 

1.  Explain  the  attitude  of  the  Socialist  toward  the  "Captain  of 
Industry." 

2.  Why  distinguish  between  the  inheritance  of  capital  and  the  inher- 
itance of  such  personal  property  as  jewelry  and  paintings? 

3.  If  a  leisure  class  was  socially  advantageous  in  the  Middle  Ages, 
why  is  it  not  so  now? 

4.  Discuss  the  social  effect  of  frequent  changes  in  fashion. 

5.  Make  a  list  of  occupations  which  would  be  regarded  by  Socialists 
as  socially  unproductive. 

6.  What  is  the  fallacy  in  the  expression,  "Spending  money  makes 
trade  good"? 

7.  How  may  great  wealth  bring  about  degeneracy? 


LITERATURE 

Ely,  R.  T.,  and  Wicker,  G.  R.,  Elementary  Principles  of  Economics, 
Ch.  IV. 

George,  Henry,  The  Menace  of  Privilege. 
Veblen,  Thorstein,  The  Theory  of  the  Leisure  Class. 


CHAPTER  VI 

INDIVIDUAL  AND   SOCIAL  RESPONSIBILITY 

Socialism  and  Individualism:  It  is  a  very  common  error 
to  regard  Socialism  and  Individualism  as  antithetical  con- 
cepts. As  a  matter  of  fact,  there  is  no  antagonism  between 
the  two.  The  Socialist  contends  that  true  individualism 
is  impossible  under  capitalism  and  that  fact  constitutes  no 
small  part  of  his  indictment  of  the  existing  social  order. 

Individualism  is  not  an  absolute  but  a  relative  term. 
There  has  never  been  a  time  when  any  individual  could  live 
his  life  within  the  boundaries  of  human  society  absolutely 
untrammeled  by  the  lives  of  others  or  their  requirements. 
The  most  despotic  monarch  has  always  been  bound  in  some 
degree  by  convention,  influenced  by  advice,  restrained  by 
fear  of  revolt  or  coerced  by  circumstance.  Even  when 
exceptional  liberties  of  individual  activity  are  enjoyed  by 
favored  individuals  or  classes  they  are  never  absolute  and 
unlimited.  Absolute  individual  freedom  is  hardly  conceiv- 
able, even  as  an  abstract  conception.  It  is  very  evident  that 
by  its  very  nature  society  places  upon  the  liberty  of  every 
individual  some  limitation,  some  restraint.  It  is  equally 
evident  that  when  excessive  individual  liberty  is  granted  to 
an  individual  or  a  class,  enabling  that  individual  or  class 
to  oppress  other  individuals  or  other  classes,  true  individual- 
ism does  not  exist.  Neitzsche's  Superman  is  often  referred 
to  as  the  perfect  apotheosis  of  individualism,  but  that  view 
is  not  warranted,  for  the  reason  that  he  could  only  exist 
by  crushing  the  individuality  of  others.  True  individualism 
is  inseparable  from  equality  of  opportunity.  The  freedom 
and  opportunities  of  each  individual  must  be  bounded  by 
the  equal  freedom  and  opportunities  of  every  other  indi- 
vidual. 

Capitalism  and  Individualism:  Under  a  system  which  is 
properly  described  as  wage-slavery  the  workers  have  little 

53 


54  ELEMENTS   OF  SOCIALISM 

freedom  or  opportunity  for  individual  development.  Their 
lives  are  forced  into  narrow  grooves,  individual  initiative  is 
discouraged,  and  they  have  no  time  for  creative  effort  out- 
side of  their  working  hours,  even  if  they  should  feel  the  need 
of  it.  Leisure  is  a  necessary  condition  for  creative  effort, 
and  that  is  an  unknown  luxury  to  most  wage-earners.  Life 
is  reduced  to  a  dull  level  of  deadly  monotony,  a  joyless  round 
of  work  at  daily  tasks  which  are  heavy,  irksome  and  unin- 
spiring, mitigated  by  cheap  recreation,  often  brutalizing  in 
its  effects,  by  eating  and  sleeping.  Relatively  few  members 
of  this  class  ever  reach  distinction.  The  great  majority  of 
the  distinguished  men  and  women  of  one  generation  are  the 
sons  and  daughters  of  the  moderately  wealthy  and  comfort- 
able middle  classes  of  the  generation  before.  When  a  mem- 
ber of  the  wage-earning  class  does  rise  to  a  place  of  distinc- 
tion it  is  a  fact  considered  worthy  of  special  comment  and 
we  get  the  impression  that  the  number  of  such  successes  is 
greater  than  it  really  is.  Even  the  leaders  of  the  workingmen 
in  their  struggles  frequently  come  from  the  classes  above. 

While  the  rich  enjoy  many  more  opportunities  for  the 
development  of  individuality  than  do  the  wage-earners,  as 
a  class  their  lives  are  not  characterized  by  a  gain  of  individ- 
uality commensurate  with  their  privileges.  The  rich  society 
woman  who  is  enslaved  by  the  customs  and  conventions  of 
the  world  in  which  she  lives,  and  exhausted  by  the  aimless 
round  of  social  duties  and  vulgar  dissipation  which  com- 
prise such  a  large  part  of  her  parasitic  existence,  is  as  much 
enslaved  by  her  wealth  as  the  poor  seamstress  is  by  her 
poverty.  Her  life  becomes  just  as  monotonous  and  irksome, 
and  equally  prevents  the  development  of  individuality. 
Such  a  woman  has  often  as  little  time  and  energy  left  for 
creative  work  and  self-expression  as  her  poorer  sister.  Even 
the  active  capitalist,  the  typical  captain  of  industry,  is  not 
free  from  the  narrow  bondage  of  wealth.  We  speak  of  such 
a  man  as  owning  so  many  millions  of  dollars,  but  it  would 
be  nearer  the  truth  to  say  that  the  millions  of  dollars  own 
him.  Absorbed  in  the  task  of  getting  wealth,  the  task  be- 
comes an  obsession.  Money  ceases  to  be  a  means,  it  becomes 
an  end:  it  is  no  longer  servant,  but  master.  Life  becomes  a 
narrow  and  sordid  existence  from  which  it  is  impossible  to 
break.  When  he  retires  in  old  age  he  is  unhappy  because 


INDIVIDUAL   AND   SOCIAL   RESPONSIBILITY        55 

he  finds  too  late  that  he  has  lost  the  capacity  for  rational 
enjoyment. 

Perhaps  the  greatest  opportunities  for  individual  develop- 
ment and  expression  are  enjoyed  by  the  most  prosperous 
and  independent  section  of  the  middle  class.  The  person 
whose  income  is  secure  and  large  enough  to  permit  the  leisure 
and  the  comfort  essential  to  a  high  order  of  creative  work, 
and  is  not  burdened  with  the  anxiety  involved  in  the  owner- 
ship of  millions,  is  more  to  be  envied  than  any  other  member 
of  society.  A  large  proportion  of  the  artists,  scientists, 
inventors,  statesmen,  philosophers  and  writers  have  come 
from  this  section  of  the  middle  class.  It  is  only  too  true  that 
a  vast  number  of  those  who  enjoy  these  advantages  do  not 
profit  by  them.  The  corrupting  influence  of  the  example  of 
the  idle  rich  is  a  factor  which  must  be  reckoned  with.  It 
is  no  wonder  that  the  lives  of  so  many  who  might  profit 
by  their  available  opportunities  become  mere  shoddy  imita- 
tions of  the  lives  of  the  richer  class  above  them,  lives  of 
vain  attempt  to  appear  to  be  something  which  they  are  not. 

To  sum  up:  for  the  great  mass  of  the  people  the  condi- 
tions of  capitalist  society  make  a  worthy  individualism 
impossible.  It  will  not  be  possible  until  parasitic  idleness 
and  brutalizing  overwork  have  both  been  abolished.  The 
goal  to  be  aimed  at  is  the  realization  of  Mr.  Ruskin's  fine 
saying  that  "Life  without  industry  is  guilt;  labor  without 
art  is  brutality."  Not  until  all  men  are  usefully  employed 
at  work  which  is  worth  the  doing  and  of  itself  a  pleasure, 
and  the  work  is  done  under  conditions  which  are  healthful, 
and  rewarded  with  the  leisure  and  the  material  goods 
necessary  to  the  fulfillment  of  every  legitimate  craving  for 
knowledge,  for  beauty  and  self-expression  will  true  individ- 
ualism be  possible. 

Class  education:  Where  social  classes  exist  it  seems 
inevitable  that  the  educational  system  as  a  whole  should 
tend  to  perpetuate  the  class  division.  Consciously  or  uncon- 
sciously, the  private  school  sharpens  class  distinctions  and 
fixes  an  almost  impassable  barrier  between 'the  rich  and  the 
wage-earning  classes.  The  public  school,  left  to  the  children 
of  the  relatively  poor,  makes  other  social  contacts  impossible. 
These  differences  maintained  throughout  the  formative  years 
of  life  form  habits  of  thought  which  can  hardly  be  broken. 


56  ELEMENTS   OF   SOCIALISM 

Thus  the  individuality  of  the  rich  child  and  the  individuality 
of  the  poor  child  are  merged  with  the  spirit  of  their  respective 
classes.  Their  sympathies  are  narrowed  and  they  are 
rendered  almost  incapable  of  entertaining  feelings  of  true 
social  unity  and  democracy. 

"Benevolent  feudalism" :  When  a  member  of  the  capitalist 
class  comes  to  a  realization  of  the  effects  of  poverty,  and 
honestly  wishes  to  improve  social  conditions,  it  does  not 
occur  to  him,  as  a  rule,  to  consult  the  wishes  of  the  people 
he  would  help.  His  attitude  is  substantially  that  of  the 
paternal  feudal  lord  who  considered  it  his  duty  to  care  for 
his  villein  tenants.  To  alter  the  conditions  of  life  by  paying 
higher  wages  is  usually  beyond  his  individual  power,  and  he 
is  not  likely  to  do  so  in  any  case.  He  is  willing  to  give  to 
the  workers  out  of  the  wealth  which  he  receives  many  of 
the  things  which  he  thinks  they  ought  to  have.  He  is  not 
even  willing  to  give  them  money  outright  as  private  largess, 
because  he  fears  that  they  would  not  spend  it  wisely. 

We  find,  then,  as  a  striking  phenomenon  of  the  capitalist 
system,  "philanthropy"  in  all  its  forms.  The  conspicuous 
gifts  of  libraries  and  universities  are  familiar  to  everyone, 
but  it  is  the  so-called  "welfare  work"  which  touches  the 
working  class  most  directly.  The  building  of  model  tene- 
ments, the  establishment  of  clubs  and  lunch  rooms,  sick 
benefit  funds  and  the  Christmas  turkey  all  supply  the  bene- 
ficiaries with  things  desirable  in  themselves,  but  it  is  ques- 
tionable whether  the  consequent  loss  of  independence  and 
self-reliance  does  not  outweigh  any  possible  benefit  received. 
The  danger  is  all  the  greater  when,  as  is  usually  the  case, 
the  gift  is  made  in  such  a  manner  as  to  increase  the  power  of 
the  giver  over  the  lives  of  the  work-people.  This  feudal 
assumption  of  personal  responsibility  for  the  social  life  of 
others  effectually  destroys  all  feeling  of  collective  responsi- 
bility, and  makes  the  worker  a  slave  in  his  social  as  well  as 
his  economic  relations.  It  is  not  surprising  that  the  working- 
man  should  resent  this  social  dictation,  nor  that  he  should 
be  charged  with  base  ingratitude  toward  his  generous  bene- 
factor. Neither  side  is  capable  of  understanding  the  motives 
and  feelings  of  the  other.  The  matter  may  perhaps  be  put 
in  a  clearer  light  by  instancing  the  case  of  the  benevolent 
capitalist  who  logically  carried  his  welfare  plans  a  step 


INDIVIDUAL   AND  SOCIAL   RESPONSIBILITY        57 

higher  in  the  social  scale  and  announced  that  he  would 
furnish  saddle  horses  for  the  free  use  of  all  his  employees 
who  were  receiving  salaries  of  $2,000  or  over.  He  was  much 
chagrined  when  the  employees  informed  him  that  they  would 
much  prefer  an  increase  of  salary. 

Social  responsibility:  While  there  is  little  direct  respon- 
sibility to  be  attached  to  any  individual  in  the  present  social 
order,  and  while  it  is  not  desirable  for  any  individual  to 
assume  such  responsibility,  we  must  recognize  a  collective 
responsibility,  in  which  we  share  as  individuals,  for  the 
existence  and  perpetuation  of  evil  and  unjust  conditions. 
Responsibility  can  only  be  attached  to  a  man  in  his  capacity 
as  a  member  of  society.  His  will  and  individuality  can  only 
be  effectively  expressed  through  the  social  organization,  and 
a  form  of  society  which  is  composed  of  antagonistic  classes 
is  a  very  imperfect  medium  for  the  expression  of  whatever 
sense  he  has  of  personally  sharing  in  the  collective  respon- 
sibility. 

Perhaps  the  greatest  social  advantage  which  results  from 
the  class  consciousness  of  the  workers,  and  the  organization 
based  upon  it,  lies  in  the  fact  that  they  offer  the  most  serv- 
iceable medium  for  the  expression  of  this  sense  of  personal 
participation  in  the  collective  responsibility  for  evil  and 
unjust  conditions.  The  working  class  is  so  numerous  that 
its  organization  offers  to  the  individual,  even  though  he 
does  not  belong  to  the  working  class,  the  most  effective 
medium  through  which  to  express  his  sense  of  being  a  sharer 
in  the  collective  responsibility  for  the  ills  of  society,  and 
the  most  efficient  method  of  contributing  to  their  removal. 
Class  ethics  may  not  be  the  highest  ethics  imaginable,  but 
the  ethics  of  the  class  in  revolt,  which  is  organized  to  abolish 
classes  and  class  rule,  is  the  highest  attainable  here  and  now, 
and,  therefore,  the  most  efficient  ethics.  When  the  means 
of  production  and  exchange  have  been  made  subject  to 
social  ownership  and  control,  their  advantages  socialized 
and  classes  abolished,  the  machinery  of  the  class-less  State 
will  make  possible  the  perfect  expression  of  the  individual's 
sense  of  sharing  every  social  responsibility. 


58  ELEMENTS   OF   SOCIALISM 


SUMMARY 

1.  Socialism  and  individualism  are  not  antithetical  concepts.    Indi- 
viduality can  only  be  expressed  through  the  medium  of  social  organiza- 
tion. 

2.  Under  capitalism  there  is  little  opportunity  for  the  development 
of  individuality  either  among  the  poor  or  among  the  rich. 

3.  Class  education  forms  habits  of  thought  which  restrict  individual- 
ity and  the  power  of  self-expression. 

4.  The  conscious  organization  of  the  working  class  offers  the  best 
medium  for  personal  participation  in  the  collective  social  responsibility. 


QUESTIONS 

1.  What  limitations  upon  individual  activity  must  be  imposed  by  any 
social  group? 

2.  What  is  the  effect  of  inequality  in  social  position  upon  indi- 
viduality? 

3.  How  does  capitalist  society  restrict  the  freedom  of  the  working- 
man?    That  of  the  capitalist? 

4.  Discuss  the  social  effect  of  philanthropy. 

5.  What  are  the  conditions  of  effective  social  responsibility? 


LlTERATTTHE 

Ghent,  W.  J.,  Our  Benevolent  Feudalism,    Mass  and  Class. 


PART  II 

SOCIALIST  THEORY 


CHAPTER  VII 

INTRODUCTORY 

The  influence  of  Karl  Marx:  As  we  turn  from  the  Social- 
ist criticism  of  existing  society  to  the  more  positive  aspects 
of  Socialism  we  encounter  the  personality  of  the  greatest 
thinker  and  most  powerful  influence  in  the  history  of  Social- 
ism, Karl  Marx.  Professor  Thorstein  Veblen  has  said:  "The 
Socialism  that  inspires  hopes  and  fears  in  the  world  to-day 
is  of  the  school  of  Marx.  No  one  is  seriously  apprehensive 
of  any  other  so-called  socialistic  movement,  and  no  one  is 
seriously  concerned  to  criticise  or  refute  the  doctrines  set 
forth  by  any  other  school  of  'Socialists.'  The  Socialists  of 
all  countries  gravitate  toward  the  theoretical  position  of 
avowed  Marxism.  In  proportion  as  the  movement  in  any 
given  country  grows  in  mass,  maturity  and  conscious  pur- 
pose, it  unavoidably  takes  on  a  more  consistently  Marxian 
complexion."1 

The  greatness  of  Karl  Marx  is  freely  admitted  by  the  most 
implacable  opponents  of  Socialism  as  well  as  by  its  most 
ardent  advocates.  The  words  "Socialism"  and  "Marxism" 
are  practically  synonymous  in  the  vast  literature  of  the 
subject  which  has  been  produced  during  the  last  thirty  or 
forty  years.  Whatever  modifications  his  followers  may  have 
made  in  his  theories,  or  may  yet  be  compelled  to  make,  one 
fact  stands  undisputed  by  friend  or  foe,  namely,  that  the 
great  international  Socialist  movement  finds  in  those  theories 
its  justification,  its  intellectual  weapons  for  defense  and 
attack,  the  rationale  of  its  aspirations  toward  a  better  and 
happier  state  of  society  and  the  bedrock  of  its  assurance  in 
the  ultimate  attainment  of  that  goal. 

Saint-Simon,  Fourier  and  Owen:  It  is  commonly  said 
that  Marx  found  Socialism  a  Utopian  movement  and  trans- 
formed it  into  a  scientific  movement.  Prior  to  Marx  Social- 

1  Quarterly  Journal  of  Economics,  XXI,  p.  299 

61 


62  ELEMENTS   OF   SOCIALISM 

ism  was  the  name  given  to  a  variety  of  communistic  schemes 
devised  and  advocated  by  men  who  regarded  themselves  as 
the  discoverers  of  the  true  remedy  for  all  social  ills.  For  our 
present  purpose  it  will  be  sufficient  if  we  regard  the  Utopian 
method  as  represented  by  the  three  great  Utopians  of  the 
early  part  of  the  nineteenth  century,  Saint-Simon  and  Fourier 
in  France  and  Robert  Owen  in  England. 

These  names  are  of  special  significance  to  us  in  this  study. 
It  was  the  Saint-Simonian  form  of  Socialism  which  first 
awakened  the  interest  of  Marx;  it  was  here  in  the  United 
States  that  the  principal  Fourierist  experiments  were  made, 
enlisting  so  many  of  the  most  brilliant  minds  of  the  latter 
part  of  the  first  half  of  the  nineteenth  century;  it  was  to 
the  schemes  of  Robert  Owen  that  the  word  "Socialism"  was 
first  applied,  in  1833,  and  Owen  also  made  his  most  ambitious 
experiment  in  the  United  States,  at  New  Harmony. 

But  there  is  another  and  weightier  reason  for  the  grouping 
together  of  the  three  names.  It  enables  us  to  avail  ourselves 
of  the  masterly  description  of  Utopian  Socialism  by  Frederick 
Engels,  perhaps  the  most  lucid  brief  statement  of  the  matter 
ever  written.  He  first  describes  how  the  French  philosophers 
of  the  eighteenth  century,  the  forerunners  of  the  Revolution, 
proclaimed  the  "Kingdom  of  Reason"  and  refused  to  recog- 
nize any  authority  other  than  that  of  reason  in  religion, 
ethics,  natural  science,  politics,  or  anything  else.  By  reason 
they  judged  society  and  all  its  institutions.  They  condemned 
society  as  a  whole  and  every  existing  social  institution  as 
irrational.  What  was  needed  was  a  Kingdom  of  Reason, 
the  rule  of  Eternal  Truth.  Engels  then  proceeds  to  show 
that  the  Utopian  Socialists,  while  holding  a  very  different 
objective  ideal  from  that  of  the  eighteenth  century  phil- 
osophers, shared  their  philosophy. 

"One  thing  is  common  to  all  three.  Not  one  of  them  ap- 
pears as  a  representative  of  the  interests  of  the  proletariat, 
which  historical  development  had,  in  the  meantime,  produced. 
Like  the  French  philosophers,  they  do  not  claim  to  eman- 
cipate a  particular  class  to  begin  with,  but  all  humanity 
at  once.  Like  them,  they  wish  to  bring  in  the  kingdom  of 
reason  and  eternal  justice,  but  this  kingdom,  as  they  see  it, 
is  as  far  as  heaven  from  earth  from  that  of  the  French 
philosophers. 


INTRODUCTORY  63 

"For,  to  our  three  social  reformers,  the  bourgeois  world, 
based  upon  the  principles  of  these  philosophers,  is  quite  as 
irrational  and  unjust,  and,  therefore,  finds  its  way  to  the 
dust-hole  quite  as  readily  as  feudalism  and  all  the  earlier 
stages  of  society.  If  pure  reason  and  justice  have  not, 
hitherto,  ruled  the  world,  this  has  been  the  case  only  because 
men  have  not  rightly  understood  them.  What  was  wanted 
was  the  individual  man  of  genius,  who  has  now  arisen  and 
who  understands  the  truth.  That  he  has  now  arisen,  that 
the  truth  has  now  been  clearly  understood,  is  not  an  inev- 
itable event,  following  of  necessity  in  the  chain  of  historical 
development,  but  a  mere  happy  accident.  He  might  just 
as  well  have  been  born  500  years  earlier,  and  might  then 
have  spared  humanity  500  years  of  error,  strife,  and  suf- 
fering." 

With  such  a  basis  it  was  inevitable  that  Utopian  Social- 
ism should  take  the  form  of  moral  judgments,  denunciations 
of  the  wickedness  and  selfishness  of  the  rich  and  powerful 
on  its  critical  side,  and  of  colonizing  schemes  on  its  positive 
side.  Fourier  waited  one  hour  at  noon  every  day  for  twelve 
years  for  the  coming  of  a  philanthropist  with  the  gift  of  a 
million  francs,  with  which  the  happiness  of  the  human  race 
would  be  secured.  The  pathetic  picture  illustrates  the 
essential  feature  of  Utopian  Socialism — the  perfect  plan 
had  been  devised;  only  the  money  was  lacking.  Once 
adopted,  the  plan  would  end  poverty,  misery  and  all  other 
social  evils. 

The  Marxian  synthesis:  Marx  began  his  career  as  a 
Socialist  by  assailing  the  ideological  basis  of  Utopian  Social- 
ism. More  than  a  decade  before  the  publication  of  the 
epoch-marking  discoveries  of  Charles  Darwin  and  Alfred 
Russell  Wallace,  and  long  before  Herbert  Spencer,  then  a 
young  man  in  his  twenties,  had  been  heard  of,  he  was  apply- 
ing the  theory  of  evolution  to  society,  and  assailing  the  very 
foundations  of  Utopianism. 

With  the  publication  of  the  Communist  Manifesto,  in  1848, 
arose  a  new  school  of  Socialism  which  laughed  all  the  fanciful 
schemes  of  communistic  colonization  to  scorn  and  based  its 
whole  argument  for  and  faith  in  a  better  society  upon  the 
broad  fact  of  evolution.  The  Darwinian  theories  greatly 
aided  the  development  of  this  new  school  by  establishing 


64  ELEMENTS   OF  SOCIALISM 

the  fact  of  evolution,  and  it  was  at  once  natural  and  proper 
that  the  new  school  of  Socialism  should  claim  to  be  scientific. 
Marxian  Socialism  is  therefore  internationally  known  as 
scientific  Socialism  in  contradistinction  to  Utopian  Socialism. 
The  philosophical  basis  of  Marxian  Socialism  consists 
of  a  synthesis  of  three  distinct  but  correlated  theories.  The 
first,  which  Marx  called  the  materialistic  conception  of 
history,  explains  the  motive  force  in  social  evolution,  its 
causation;  the  second,  the  class  struggle  theory,  explains 
the  mode  of  social  evolution  as  distinguished  from  its  causa- 
tion; the  third,  the  theory  of  surplus-value,  explains  the 
basis  and  origin  of  the  class  antagonisms  in  present  society, 
and  the  development  of  society  in  the  direction  of  Socialism. 
It  is  with  this  philosophical  synthesis  we  are  concerned  at 
this  stage  of  our  study. 


SUMMARY 

1.  The  theory  of  modern  Socialism  is  inseparable  from  the  construc- 
tive thought  of  Karl  Marx. 

2.  The  theory  of  modern  Socialism  does  not  admit  of  arbitrarily 
constructed  Utopian  ideals. 

3.  The  philosophical  basis  of  Marxian  Socialism  is  a  synthesis  of  the 
theories  of  the  economic  interpretation  of  history,  of  the  class-struggle 
and  of  surplus-value. 


QUESTIONS 

1.  Discuss  the  position  o*  Marx  in  Socialist  thought. 

2.  What  was  the  earliest  meaning  of  the  word  Socialism? 

3.  What  is  the  essential  difference  between  Utopian  and  Marxian 
Socialism? 


CHAPTER  VIII 

SOCIAL   EVOLUTION 

Socialism  and  the  principle  of  evolution:  The  principles 
of  scientific  Socialism  are  almost  meaningless  without  a 
comprehension  of  the  evolutionary  character  of  life  and  of 
society.  Scientific  Socialism  studies  the  evolutionary  changes 
that  have  taken  place  in  society  from  the  simplest  human 
groups  in  primitive  savagery  to  the  complex  world  society 
of  to-day.  It  investigates  the  causes  of  the  changes  which 
have  taken  place,  and  the  causes  which  are  operating  in 
the  world  at  present.  It  recognizes  that  the  evolutionary 
process  is  not  yet  complete,  and  points  out  the  next  step 
in  social  evolution,  which  Socialists  believe  will  be  to  a  world 
society  based  upon  cooperative  production,  and  cooperative 
use  of  natural  wealth,  for  the  benefit  of  all,  as  contrasted 
with  the  present  stage  of  development,  in  which  wealth 
is  produced  and  used  largely  for  the  benefit  of  a  few. 

The  evolution  of  social  groups  is  recognized  by  non- 
Socialists,  but  they  generally  confine  themselves  to  a  descrip- 
tion of  past  conditions,  without  applying  the  results  of  their 
observation  in  the  formulation  of  social  theories,  or  in  the 
forecasting  of  the  future  course  of  development. 

Evolution  and  revolution:  Darwin  and  his  immediate 
followers  believed  that  evolution  was  the  result  of  infini- 
tesimal variations  in  existing  forms,  which  gradually 
accumulated  when  they  proved  of  advantage  to  the  indi- 
vidual, and  in  time  resulted  in  new  species.  The  development 
of  new  forms  of  life  would  therefore  be  a  process  so  slow  as 
to  be  imperceptible  except  by  the  comparison  of  two  periods 
separated  by  thousands  of  generations  of  individuals.  A 
more  recent  school  of  biology  believes  that  changes  come 
more  suddenly.  New  environmental  conditions  cause  many 
members  of  a  species  to  depart  greatly  from  the  type,  so 
that  in  one  generation  there  are  individuals  so  different  from 

65 


66  ELEMENTS   OF   SOCIALISM 

their  parents  that  they  may  be  classed  as  a  new  variety. 
Some  of  these  individuals,  if  bred  to  others  of  like  character, 
will  breed  true  without  reversion  to  the  older  type.  This 
is  the  theory  of  evolution  by  mutations  of  which  Hugo 
DeVries  is  the  greatest  exponent.  According  to  this  theory, 
the  development  of  new  species,  instead  of  depending  upon 
an  incalculably  slow  process  of  modification,  frequently 
results  from  relatively  sudden  changes.  In  other  words, 
there  are  sudden  leaps  or  "mutations"  in  the  process  of 
evolution.  This  theory  has  been  of  great  interest  to  Socialists 
because  by  analogy  it  appears  to  support  the  view  that  social 
transformation  may  be  relatively  sudden,  and  not  conditioned 
by  a  slow  process  of  almost  imperceptible  change. 

However  conflicting  these  views  may  seem  to  be,  they  are 
in  fact  not  conflicting  but  complementary.  Just  as  Darwin 
himself  "recognized  both  lines  of  evolution,"  that  variations 
might  arise  suddenly,  as  De  Vries  claims,  or  gradually  and 
almost  imperceptibly,  so  the  best  thoughts  of  the  modern 
Socialist  movement  reconcile  both  views  of  social  evolu- 
tion. Revolution  is  not  the  opposite  of  evolution.  As  nature 
accomplishes  changes  by  slow  and  gradual  processes,  by 
erosion  and  climatic  cycles  covering  hundreds  of  thousands 
of  years,  so  also  it  works  by  sudden  changes,  earthquakes, 
volcanic  eruptions,  and  the  crashing  together  of  worlds  in 
space. 

Socialism,  then,  recognizes  the  existence  of  both  gradual 
and  relatively  sudden  changes  in  social  organization.  When- 
ever forces,  physical  or  social,  meet  with  but  slight  resistance, 
the  changes  they  effect  are  slow  and  gradual.  But  when 
forces  are  checked  by  the  inertia  of  the  mass  on  which  they 
work,  or  by  the  opposition  of  other  forces,  an  accumulation 
of  energy  results,  and  when  a  crisis  comes  the  change  is 
sudden  and  often  catastrophic. 

Animal  and  human  societies:  Professor  Giddings  defines 
sociology  as  the  "science  of  the  natural  groupings  and 
collective  behavior  of  living  things,  including  human  beings." 
The  lower  animals,  and  even  plants,  live  in  groups  and  have 
a  form  of  social  organization.  Among  ants  and  bees  this 
organization  is  very  complex  and  involves  division  of  labor 
and  indirect  processes  to  a  high  degree.  Evolution  was  not 
always  the  result  of  struggle  and  the  survival  of  the  strongest 


SOCIAL   EVOLUTION  67 

and  most  cunning,  but  mutual  aid,  companionship  and 
cooperation  played  a  large  part  in  the  processes  of  develop- 
ment. 

Family  life  begins  far  back  of  human  society.  The 
organization  of  groups  for  offense  and  defense  and  for  the 
gathering  of  food  are  so  common  among  animals  that  exam- 
ples need  not  be  cited.  They  will  occur  to  everyone.  All 
these  forms  of  cooperation  had  their  effect  on  variation  and 
survival,  and  it  was  not  always  the  strongest  or  best  adapted 
individuals  who  survived,  but  the  forms  best  equipped  with 
a  social  nature.  When  man  first  appeared  he  was  already 
equipped  with  a  social  heredity  of  association  and  coopera- 
tion which  enabled  him,  in  spite  of  his  naturally  defenseless 
condition,  to  hold  his  own  in  the  struggle  with  other  animals. 

No  existing  human  society  is  so  low  in  the  scale  of  evolu- 
tion as  was  that  of  primitive  man,  but  the  evidence  is 
conclusive  that  man  was  always  a  "social  animal,"  probably 
evolving  in  the  form  of  social  groups  through  the  slow  stages 
from  anthropoid  to  man,  so  that  even  if  we  could  observe 
in  retrospect  the  complete  process,  it  would  be  impossible 
to  fix  within  a  hundred  thousand  years  the  time  of  the 
appearance  of  a  group  form  which  was  distinctly  human. 
But  although  social  evolution  had  its  beginnings  far  back 
of  the  human  race,  for  our  present  purpose  the  study  of 
human  societies  is  sufficient. 

The  social  mind:  "The  mental  and  moral  elements  of 
society  are  combined  in  products  that  are  called  by  such 
terms  as  the  common  feeling,  the  general  desire,  the  moral 
sense,  the  public  opinion,  and  the  general  will  of  the  com- 
munity, which  it  is  convenient  for  the  sociologist  to  name 
collectively  the  social  mind."1 

With  the  development  of  man  and  his  differentiation  into 
races,  society  became  more  and  more  complex,  and  in  the 
place  of  the  instinctive  habits  of  lower  animals  there  devel- 
oped the  social  mind.  The  basic  ideas  which  form  the  content 
of  the  social  mind  are  economic.  Individual  experiences 
of  utility,  such  as  the  discovery  of  the  food  value  of  a  plant, 
are  developed  and  communicated  by  means  of  association 
and  become  the  common  property  of  the  group.  Where 
useful  things  were  limited  in  quantity  and  the  supply  was 

1  Franklin  H.  Giddings,  Principles  of  Sociology,  p.  132. 


68  ELEMENTS   OF   SOCIALISM 

not  equal  to  the  demand  the  ideas  of  wealth  and  value  must 
have  entered  the  primitive  social  mind.  Private  property 
was  probably  somewhat  later  in  origin. 

The  necessity  of  protecting  the  sources  of  food  supply 
gave  rise  to  the  recognition  within  the  group  of  a  common 
territory,  and  the  exclusion  of  other  groups  from  these 
hunting  or  fishing  grounds.  Warfare  developed  leaders 
and  allegiance,  and  welded  the  group  into  a  political  organ- 
ization of  a  primitive  type. 

Primitive  man  began  to  think  and  to  talk  about  himself  and 
his  environment.  The  world  seemed  full  of  mystery.  How 
could  he  hunt  in  a  dream  when  his  friends  swore  that  he 
had  not  moved?  The  echo  and  the  shadow  puzzled  him. 
The  mighty  forces  of  nature  awed  him.  There  must  be  a 
power  greater  than  himself,  and  since  he  could  not  think 
of  forces  as  impersonal,  he  imputed  personality  to  that 
power.  There  must  be  a  spirit  apart  from  the  body  or  he 
could  not  hunt  in  his  dreams.  Thus  were  evolved  the  ideas 
of  anthropomorphic  gods,  spirits  and  ghosts.  His  friends 
slept  and  afterwards  reported  dream  adventures,  so  his 
friends  dead  had  gone  away  to  the  "happy  hunting  grounds" 
to  stay.  Thus  at  a  stage  earlier  than  any  now  represented 
by  even  the  lowest  modern  savages,  the  social  mind  contained 
ideas  economic,  political  and  religious,  ideas  which  effectu- 
ally differentiated  him  from  his  ancestors. 

The  family:  There  is  no  unanimity  of  opinion  among 
sociologists  as  to  the  form  of  the  primitive  family.  Prac- 
tically all  forms  of  the  family  known  among  men  are  to  be 
found  also  among  lower  animals.  The  simplest  theory,  and 
one  which  has  never  been  disproven,  is  that  primitive  man 
lived  in  a  state  of  practical  promiscuity  with  no  form  of 
marriage.  It  is  true  that  nearly  all  if  not  all  of  the  peoples 
now  in  existence  have  some  form  of  marriage,  but  the  tie 
is  often  only  temporary.  There  is  evidence  that  every  race 
has  passed  through  a  social  stage  in  which  the  only  relation- 
ships were  those  traced  through  the  mother,  the  obvious 
reasons  being  either  the  failure  to  recognize  the  part  of  the 
father  in  the  child  or  the  difficulty  of  determining  its  pater- 
nity. It  is  doubtful  if  for  one-tenth  of  the  life  of  mankind 
paternal  relationships  have  been  anywhere  recognized. 

The  most  primitive  races  now  living  have  very  elaborate 


SOCIAL   EVOLUTION  69 

systems  of  kinship  through  the  mother,  and  these  systems 
are  remarkably  similar  between  groups  in  a  similar  stage  of 
development,  no  matter  in  what  part  of  the  world  they 
may  live.  The  American  Indian,  the  Australian  Bushman 
and  the  primitive  European  all  had  the  same  complex 
maternal  family  organization. 

Perhaps  through  the  conquest  of  another  people  and  the 
appropriation  of  its  women,  the  relation  of  father  to  child 
began  to  be  looked  upon  as  important,  and  finally  modified 
the  mother  family  to  the  extent  that  maternal  relationships 
were  often  disregarded.  It  is  only  in  very  recent  times  and 
in  a  relatively  high  civilization  that  a  monogamous  family 
becomes  the  rule  and  relationship  is  traced  both  through  the 
father  and  through  the  mother.  A  stable  monogamous 
family  is  a  high  ideal  which  is  yet  far  from  being  fully 
realized. 

The  clan :  As  the  children  of  a  common  mother  recognized 
their  bond  of  kinship  from  the  beginnings  of  human  society, 
it  was  natural  to  continue  the  bond  from  generation  to 
generation  and  so  form  the  clan  or  gens.  Under  this  system 
all  descendants  through  female  lines  of  a  common  female 
ancestor,  often  so  remote  as  to  be  mythical,  were  counted 
as  kin,  thus  forming  the  social  organization  next  broader 
than  the  simple  family.  It  is  as  though  under  our  system 
the  children  all  took  the  name  of  the  mother  instead  of  that 
of  the  father  from  generation  to  generation,  and  all  persons 
having  the  same  surname  were  considered  as  kin  and  bound 
to  aid  and  assist  one  another  in  every  way  possible.  A  son 
then  belonged  to  the  clan  of  his  mother,  but  his  children 
belonged  to  the  clan  of  their  mother,  and  were  not  recognized 
by  their  paternal  relatives  and  were  under  no  obligations  to 
them. 

When  the  transition  came  from  the  mother  family  to  the 
father  family,  the  clan  also  changed  its  nature  and  maternal 
relationships  were  disregarded.  This  form  can  be  more  easily 
understood,  for  it  is  the  familiar  system  of  Scotland  and 
Ireland,  where  such  clans  as  the  McDougalls  and  the  O'Neills 
have  maintained  their  organization  almost  to  the  present 
day. 

For  the  purposes  of  common  religious  ceremonies  from 
two  to  five  clans  sometimes  combined  into  a  phratry.  The 


70  ELEMENTS   OF   SOCIALISM 

i 

origin  of  the  phratry  was  probably  the  subdivision  of  a 
single  clan,  the  various  divisions  retaining  memories,  and, 
later,  traditions,  of  their  former  unity. 

The  tribe  and  the  confederacy:  The  ancient  clan  was  too 
weak  in  numbers  to  engage  in  war  or  to  inspire  respect  in 
the  minds  of  possible  enemies,  so  a  number  of  clans  were 
united  into  a  tribe.  The  tribe  was  organized  under  the 
leadership  of  its  elders  and  its  own  war  chiefs  and  occupied 
a  fairly  definite  territory  when  not  migrating  from  one  sec- 
tion to  another. 

The  more  advanced  peoples  were  still  further  organized 
into  tribal  confederacies,  such  as  the  league  of  the  twelve 
tribes  of  Israel  and  that  of  the  Iroquois.  These  confed- 
eracies were  the  highest  forms  of  political  organization 
attained  in  savage  or  barbarous  society  and  sometimes 
attained  to  the  proportions  of  powerful  states. 

Probably  the  best  example  of  tribal  organization  based 
upon  kinship  is  that  of  the  Iroquois  as  described  by  Lewis 
H.  Morgan.  About  the  time  of  the  first  Dutch  Settlement, 
five  Indian  tribes,  occupying  a  territory  now  included  in 
the  State  of  New  York,  formed  a  league  or  confederacy. 
In  1715  a  sixth  tribe,  the  Tuscaroras,  was  admitted,  but  not 
to  full  equality. 

Primitive  communism:  In  tribal  society  there  was  no 
conception  of  private  property  other  than  that  directly 
associated  with  the  person.  Much  of  the  trouble  between 
the  whites  and  the  Indians  of  America  has  been  due  to  the 
failure  of  the  Indian  to  comprehend  our  idea  of  private 
property  in  land.  In  tribal  communism  any  object  not 
in  use  is  looked  upon  as  common  property.  The  spoils  of 
the  chase  are  always  impartially  divided,  and  the  hoarding 
of  food  or  other  useful  things  is  not  tolerated.  Even  dwell- 
ings are  rarely  private.  Among  the  Iroquois  the  members  of 
the  same  clan  living  in  the  same  village  occupy  one  com- 
munal dwelling.  Even  the  lazy  are  in  no  danger  of  starva- 
tion. They  are  welcome  to  share  in  the  food  provided  in 
any  lodge,  but  they  are  obliged  to  suffer  scorn  and  abuse 
from  their  hosts,  especially  from  the  women. 

The  ideas  of  primitive  communism  are  hard  to  eradicate. 
They  survive  in  the  universal  hospitality  of  all  simple  folk 
the  world  over.  The  Russian  moujik  cannot  be  reconciled  to 


SOCIAL   EVOLUTION  71 

the  division  of  the  communal  lands  of  the  mir.  The  "thieving 
propensities"  of  the  Southern  negro  do  not  come  from  a 
criminal  nature,  but  from  the  failure  of  a  simple  barbarous 
people  fully  to  appreciate  the  conception  of  private  property. 

Private  property:  In  order  that  anything  may  become 
private  property  it  must  not  only  be  appropriated  by  an 
individual,  but  society  must  acknowledge  his  right  of 
possession.  The  only  forms  of  individual  property  so  sanc- 
tioned by  society  under  tribal  communism  were  weapons, 
personal  ornaments,  and  trophies  of  the  chase  or  of  war. 
As  society  became  more  complex,  the  elders  of  tribes  and 
war-chiefs  were  permitted  to  appropriate  more  than  a  pro- 
portional share  of  the  booty  of  a  successful  raid.  When  war 
captives  began  to  be  kept  alive  as  slaves  instead  of  being 
killed,  the  custom  arose  of  considering  them  as  the  private 
property  of  the  chief.  It  is  only  under  civilization  that 
private  property  in  land  appears.  Land  ownership  by 
groups  and  families  leans  naturally  to  ownership  by  indi- 
viduals. Private  property  in  the  social  means  of  production 
aside  from  land  is  almost  entirely  the  product  of  capitalist 
society.  Never  before,  except  in  agricultural  and  great 
building  operations,  were  armies  of  men  employed  in  pro- 
ducing for  individual  owners  of  the  means  of  production. 

From  savagery  to  barbarism :  Morgan l  divides  the  proc- 
ess of  social  evolution  into  three  main  epochs — savagery, 
barbarism  and  civilization.  Savagery  and  barbarism  in 
turn  may  be  divided  into  three  main  stages — lower,  middle 
and  upper.  As  in  the  case  of  all  forms  of  evolution,  progress 
is  slowest  in  the  earlier  stages,  and  it  has  been  estimated 
that  nine-tenths  of  the  life  of  the  human  race  has  been  spent 
in  the  epoch  of  savagery  and  about  one-hundredth  only  in 
the  epoch  of  civilization. 

The  first  stage  of  savagery  alone  probably  lasted  longer 
than  all  subsequent  stages  of  human  evolution  combined, 
so  that  while  the  progress  made  by  mankind  in  this  stage 
was  very  slow,  the  absolute  gain  was  very  great.  No  race 
of  to-day  is  50  low  as  the  first  stage  of  savagery  in  which 
mankind  still  lived  in  the  tropical  forest,  probably  in  trees, 
and  subsisted  on  fruits,  nuts  and  roots,  and  probably  raw 
meat  and  fish.  During  this  period  man  first  developed 

Indent  Society,  by  Lewis  H.  Morgan,  p.  9  et  seq. 


72  ELEMENTS   OF   SOCIALISM 

articulate  speech  and  learned  to  use  clubs  and  stones  for 
defense  and  attack. 

With  the  discovery  and  control  of  fire  begins  the  middle 
state  of  savagery.  Coincident  with  this  great  advance 
comes  the  use  of  rough  chipped  stone  implements.  Dis- 
covery and  invention  thus  enabled  the  savage  to  enlarge 
his  menu  and  to  make  his  food  more  palatable  by  cooking. 
The  lowest  tribes  of  to-day  are  living  in  the  middle  stage  of 
savagery. 

The  higher  stage  of  savagery  is  marked  by  the  use  of  the 
bow  and  arrow,  wooden  vessels  and  utensils  and  polished 
stone  implements.  Many  Asiatic  and  African  tribes  are 
still  in  this  higher  stage  of  savagery  as  were  our  own  North 
Western  Indians  until  comparatively  recent  times. 

From  barbarism  to  civilization:  The  transition  to  bar- 
barism was  marked  by  the  invention  of  pottery,  which  was 
probably  first  made  by  covering  wooden  or  wicker  vessels 
with  clay  and  burning  out  the  wood.  In  this  stage  animals 
were  domesticated  and  agriculture  began.  Most  of  the 
North  American  Indians  were  in  the  lower  stage  of  barbar- 
ism at  the  time  of  the  settlement  of  the  country  by  Euro- 
peans, and  not  savages  as  is  generally  supposed. 

In  the  middle_stage  of  barbarism,  represented  by  the 
~Indians"of  Mexico  and  Peru,  agriculture  was  further  devel- 
oped and  dwellings  were  built  of  stone  and  sun-dried  brick. 
The  softer  metals  were  known  and  used.  In  the  East  the 
middle  stage  of  barbarism  is  represented  by  such  nomadic 
groups  as  those  of  Abraham  and  Jacob  before  the  Egyptian 
captivity. 

The  higher  stage  of  barbarism  begins  with  the  smelting 
oT  Iron.  It  is  the  age  of  mythology  and  epic  poetry,  the  age 
of  the  Homeric  poems  and  the  Norse  Sagas. 

These  stages  have  differed  in  different  parts  of  the  world 
only  in  so  far  as  the  natural  environment  has  differed.  In 
regions  where  metals  were  rare  the  development  of  metal 
working  was  slower  than  that  of  agriculture  and  pottery. 
By  reason  of  their  invention  of  a  primitive  calendar  and  their 
near  approach  to  a  written  language,  the  Mayas  of  Yucatan 
might  perhaps  be  classed  as  barbarians  of  the  higher  class, 
or  even  as  approaching  civilization,  although  they  had  not 
learned  to  smelt  iron. 


SOCIAL   EVOLUTION  73 

It  is  only  with  the  development  of  a  written  language,  as 
distinguished  from  primitive  picture  writing,  the  destruc- 
tion of  social  organizations  based  upon  kinship,  the  wider 
utilization  of  natural  and  manufactured  products,  and  the 
beginnings  of  science  that  we  have  civilization.  The  first 
known  civilizations  originated  in  Egypt  and  Babylonia 
about  the  year  4000  B.  c.  These  early  civilizations  were 
but  beginnings  and  were  participated  in  by  only  a  small 
part  of  the  people  in  the  countries  in  which  they  arose. 

Ancient  civilization:  The  elements  of  culture  developed 
in  the  valleys  of  the  Nile  and  the  Tigris-Euphrates  were 
appropriated  successively  by  the  other  peoples  of  South- 
western Asia  and  the  Mediterranean  basin,  and  received 
new  additions  through  the  varied  experiences  of  the  different 
peoples,  until  the  new  civilization  culminated  in  the  mag- 
nificent literature,  art,  architecture  and  philosophy  of  the 
Age  of  Pericles  in  Greece.  But  ancient  civilization  was  never 
the  possession  of  the  many.  Culture,  refinement,  art  and 
literature  are  impossible  without  leisure  and  freedom  from 
drudgery.  Ancient  civilization  was  built  on  slavery.  Athens, 
so  far  as  its  20,000  citizens  were  concerned,  was  nearer  the 
Socialist  ideal  than  any  equally  large  community  before  or 
since,  but  the  slaves,  who  probably  numbered  nearly  200,000, 
were  entirely  outside  the  Athenian  civilization,  and  were 
simply  the  labor-saving  machines  which  made  that  civiliza- 
tion with  its  culture  possible.  The  complete  separation  of 
culture  and  civilization  from  production  ultimately  led  to 
the  degeneration  of  the  leisure  class,  which,  enervated  by 
luxury  and  dissipation,  could  not  retain  its  power.  The 
development  of  philosophy  was  checked  by  a  wave  of  oriental 
mysticism.  Rome  then  became  the  leader  of  civilization, 
but  the  conditions  of  its  environment  led  to  conquest  and 
empire  with  the  consequent  development  of  law  and  admin- 
istration, rather  than  literature  and  art.  Then  came  the 
infiltration  and,  finally,  the  invasion  of  the  empire  by  the 
barbarian  North,  and  the  slow  process  of  the  absorption  and 
democratization  of  ancient  civilization  by  the  whole  popula- 
tion of  Europe,  a  process  in  which  the  medieval  church 
played  a  prominent  part. 

Modern  civilization:  From  one  point  of  view,  the  Middle 
Ages  seem  no  more  advanced  than  the  first  stages  of  civiliza- 


74  ELEMENTS   OF   SOCIALISM 

tion  in  Egypt.  As  in  Egypt,  almost  the  only  scholars  were 
priests  and  monks,  and  the  mass  of  the  people  were  bar- 
barians. The  same  course  of  development  and  adaptation 
had  to  be  repeated,  but  on  a  far  larger  scale.  Little  of  real 
value  was  lost,  but  instead  of  twenty  thousand  Athenians, 
there  were  millions  of  Europeans  to  civilize  and  two  thousand 
years  were  needed  to  accomplish  the  task.  Modern  civiliza- 
tion is  in  some  respects  no  higher  than  that  of  Greece,  but 
it  is  on  an  infinitely  grander  scale.  Its  greatest  original 
achievements  are  its  science  and  its  control  of  the  forces  of 
nature.  As  before  we  must  have  leisure  and  freedom  from 
drudgery  in  order  to  become  civilized,  but  for  the  first  time 
in  all  the  history  of  man  the  time  has  come  when  machines 
can  be  made  to  do  the  drudgery,  and  the  powers  of  man 
released,  so  that  he  may  develop  a  real  civilization  which 
all  may  enjoy,  and  not  merely  a  favored  few. 


SOCIAL   EVOLUTION  75 

SUMMARY 

1.  Modern  Socialism  finds  its  justification  in  the  principles  of  uni- 
versal evolution,  and  its  hope  for  the  future  is  based  upon  its  inter- 
pretation of  the  past. 

2.  The  earliest  human  society  was  based  upon  kinship  and  primitive 
communism.     From  these  beginnings  Society  had  slowly  evolved  into 
the  complex  world  civilization  of  to-day. 

3.  The  main  stages  of  social  evolution  are  savagery,  barbarism  and 
civilization.     Civilization  begins  with  the  destruction  of  kinship  or- 
ganization and  the  development  of  written  language. 

4.  Ancient  civilization  was  the 'possession  of  the  few  and  had  its 
economic  basis  in  slave  labor.     Modern  civilization  is  the  possession  of 
the  many  and  is  based  upon  machine  production. 


QUESTIONS 

1.  Why  do  modern  Socialists  consider  the  principle  of  evolution  as 
a  necessary  part  of  their  theory? 

2.  What  special  significance  do  Socialists  find  in  the  "mutation 
theory"  of  De  Vries? 

3.  What  is  meant  by  the  "social  mind"? 

4.  Explain  the  probable  origin  of  the  clan  or  gens. 

5.  Give  examples  illustrating  the  survival  of  the  spirit  of  primitive 
communism. 

6.  What  was  the  probable  origin  of  private  property? 

7.  What  are  the  characteristic  features  of  each  of  the  stages  of 
savagery?     Of  barbarism? 

8.  What  are  the  essential  features  of  civilized  society? 

9.  What  are  the  essential  differences  between  ancient  and  modern 
civilization? 

LlTERATTTKE 

Darwin,  Charles,  Origin  of  Species.  Descent  of  Man. 

De  Vries,  Hugo,  Species  and  Varieties,  their  Origin  bv  Mutation. 

Engels,  F.,  Origin  of  the  Family,  Private  Property  and  the  State. 

Giddings,  F.  H.,  Principles  of  Sociology. 

Howard,  G.  E.,  History  of  Matrimonial  Institutions. 

Morgan,  L.  H.,  Ancient  Society. 

Parsons,  Elsie  Clews,  The  Family. 

Spencer,  Herbert,  Principles  of  Sociology,  Vol.  I,  Part  I. 

Westermarck,  E.,  History  of  Human  Marriage. 


CHAPTER  IX 

THE   ECONOMIC   INTERPRETATION   OF   HISTORY 

The  motive  forces  in  social  evolution:  So  far  we  have 
been  outlining  roughly  the  evolution  of  society  from  savagery 
to  civilization.  The  next  question  is  "Why  have  these 
changes  taken  place?"  The  problem  is  complex.  Man  has 
always  lived  in  society  and  has  been  obliged  to  adapt  him- 
self to  his  social  environment,  and  the  social  group  in  turn 
has  always  occupied  some  part  of  the  earth's  surface  in  a 
physical  environment  to  which  it  has  been  obliged  to  adapt 
itself.  The  climate,  soil,  contour  of  the  land,  presence  or 
absence  of  water,  the  flora  and  fauna  have  all  had  their 
influence  upon  man,  and  man  has  also  modified  his  environ- 
ment. 

Many  writers  have  ascribed  the  changes  in  social  organiza- 
tion to  man's  own  will  and  to  the  influence  of  great  leaders. 
But  while  it  is  true  that  men  sometimes  rise  above  their 
environment,  the  "Great  Man  Theory"  minimizes  the  limita- 
tions of  environment,  both  social  and  physical.  Other 
writers  have  gone  to  the  opposite  extreme  and  attempted  to 
interpret  history  by  the  physical  environment  alone,  leaving 
out  of  consideration  the  influence  which  men  have  been  able 
to  exert  over  their  own  destiny  by  modifying  their  environ- 
ment. 

The  Socialist  theory:  Modern  scientific  Socialism  has  for 
its  philosophical  basis  the  Marxian  theory  of  historical 
development,  which  many  Socialist  writers  of  the  present 
day  call  the  Economic  Interpretation  of  History.  Marx 
and  Engels,  who  were  the  first  to  develop  the  theory,  called 
it  the  Materialistic  Conception  of  History.  The  advantages 
of  the  former  term  over  the  latter  are,  first,  that  the  specific 
term  "economic"  is  more  accurately  descriptive  than  the 
term  "materialistic,"  and,  second,  that  it  obviates  the  mis- 
understandings which  arise  from  the  confusion  in  the  popular 

76 


THE  ECONOMIC  INTERPRETATION  OF  HISTORY     77 

mind  of  the  word  "materialistic"  with  the  doctrines  of  philo- 
sophical materialism.  The  essence  of  the  theory  is  that  the 
rate  and  direction  of  social  evolution  are  mainly,  but  not 
exclusively,  conditioned  by  the  development  of  the  methods 
of  production  and  exchange.  It  does  not  exclude  other 
factors,  but  subordinates  them  to  the  economic  factor. 

Origin  of  the  theory:  While  it  is  true  that  earlier  writers 
laid  the  foundations  of  the  theory  of  the  economic  motiva- 
tion of  society,  or  anticipated  it,  Karl  Marx  was  the  first  to 
formulate  it  and  cause  it  to  be  recognized  as  a  theory  of 
great  philosophical  importance.  This  is  probably  his  great- 
est single  contribution  to  the  thought  of  the  world. 

The  first  indications  of  the  theory  in  any  of  the  writings 
of  Marx  are  to  be  found  in  his  little  known  work,  Die  Heilige 
Familie,  which  was  published  in  1845.  But  it  was  not  until 
the  publication  of  his  Contribution  to  the  Critique  of  Political 
Economy,  in  1859,  that  he  attempted  to  elaborate  the  theory. 
In  the  preface  to  that  work  Marx  wrote: 

I  was  led  by  my  studies  to  the  conclusion  that  legal  relations  as  well 
as  forms  of  state  could  neither  be  understood  by  themselves,  nor  ex- 
plained by  the  so-called  general  progress  of  the  human  mind,  but  that 
they  are  rooted  in  the  material  conditions  of  life,  which  are  summed  up 
by  Hegel  after  the  fashion  of  the  English  and  French  of  the  eighteenth 
century  under  the  name  "civic  society";  the  anatomy  of  that  civic 
society  is  to  be  found  in  political  economy.  The  study  of  the  latter 
which  I  had  taken  up  in  Paris,  I  continued  at  Brussels  whither  I  immi- 
grated on  account  of  an  order  issued  by  Guizot.  The  general  conclusion 
at  which  I  arrived  and  which,  once  reached,  continued  to  serve  as  the 
leading  thread  in  my  studies,  may  be  briefly  summed  up  as  follows: 
In  the  social  production  which  men  carry  on  they  enter  into  definite 
relations  that  are  indispensable  and  independent  of  their  will;  these 
relations  of  production  correspond  to  a  definite  stage  of  development 
of  their  material  powers  of  production.  The  sum  total  of  these  rela- 
tions of  production  constitutes  the  economic  structure  of  society — the 
real  foundation,  on  which  rise  legal  and  political  superstructures  and  to 
which  correspond  definite  forms  of  social  consciousness.  The  mode 
of  production  in  material  life  determines  the  general  character  dflhe 
social,  political  and~spMtual  processes  of  life.  It  is  not  the  conscious- 
ness of  men  that  determines  their  existence,  but,  on  the  contrary,  their 
social  existence  determines  their  consciousness.1 

Marx  proceeded  to  illustrate  the  value  of  the  theory  as  a 
method  of  historical  interpretation  by  sketching  in  bold  and 

1A  Contribution  to  the  Critique  of  Political  Economy,  by  Karl  Marx, 
translated  from  the  second  German  edition  by  N.  I.  Stone,  p.  11. 


78  ELEMENTS   OF   SOCIALISM 

vigorous  outline  the  interrelation  of  economic  methods  and 
social  and  political  institutions: 

At  a  certain  stage  of  their  development,  the  material  forces  of  pro- 
duction in  society  come  in  conflict  with  the  existing  relations  in  produc- 
tion, or — what  is  but  a  legal  expression  for  the  same  thing — with  the 
property  relations  within  which  they  had  been  at  work  before.  From 
forms  of  development  of  the  forces  of  production  these  relations  turn 
into  their  fetters.  Then  comes  the  period  of  social  revolution. 
With  the  change  of  the  economic  foundation  the  entire  immense  super- 
structure is  more  or  less  rapidly  transformed.  In  considering  such 
transformations  the  distinction  should  always  be  made  between  the 
material  transformation  of  the  economic  conditions  of  production  which 
can  be  determined  with  the  precision  of  natural  science,  and  the  legal, 
political,  religious,  aesthetic  or  philosophic — in  short,  ideological  forms 
in  which  men  become  conscious  of  the  conflict  and  fight  it  out.  Just 
as  our  opinion  of  an  individual  is  not  based  on  what  he  thinks  of  himself, 
so  can  we  not  judge  of  such  a  period  of  transformation  by  its  own 
consciousness;  on  the  contrary,  this  consciousness  must  rather  be  ex- 
plained from  the  contradictions  of  material  life,  from  the  existing  con- 
flict between  the  material  forces  of  production  and  the  relations  of  pro- 
duction. No  social  order  ever  disappears  before  all  the  productive 
forces,  for  which  there  is  room  in  it,  have  been  developed;  and  new 
higher  relations  of  production  never  appear  before  the  material  con- 
ditions of  their  existence  have  matured  in  the  womb  of  the  old  society. 
Therefore,  mankind  always  takes  up  only  such  problems  as  it  can  solve: 
since,  looking  at  the  matter  more  closely,  we  will  always  find  that  the 
problem  itself  arises  only  when  the  material  conditions  necessary  for 
its  solution  exist  or  are  at  least  in  the  process  of  formation.1 

Delimitation  of  the  theory:  Marx  and  Engels  sometimes, 
in  controversies  with  their  critics,  over-emphasized  the 
influence  of  the  economic  factor  in  social  evolution  and  made 
their  statement  of  the  theory  too  absolute.  This  Engels 
himself  freely  admitted  toward  the  close  of  his  life.  Thus, 
in  1890  he  wrote  to  a  student:  "Marx  and  I  are  partly 
responsible  for  the  fact  that  younger  men  have  sometimes 
laid  more  stress  on  the  economic  side  than  it  deserves.  In 
meeting  the  attacks  of  our  opponents,  it  was  necessary 
for  us  to  emphasize  the  dominant  principle  denied  by  them ; 
and  we  did  not  always  have  the  time,  place  or  opportunity 
to  let  the  other  factors  which  were  concerned  in  the  mutual 
action  and  reaction  get  their  deserts."2  In  another  letter 
he  says:  "According  to  the  materialistic  view  of  history, 

lldem,  pp.  12-13. 

1  Quoted  from  the  Sozialistische  Akademiker,  1895,  by  Seligman, 
The  Economic  Interpretation  of  History,  pp.  142-143. 


THE  ECONOMIC  INTERPRETATION  OF  HISTORY      79 

the  factor  which  is  in  last  instance  decisive  in  history  is  the 
production  and  reproduction  of  actual  life.  More  than  this 
neither  Marx  nor  I  have  ever  asserted.  But  when  any  one 
distorts  this  so  as  to  read  that  the  economic  factor  is  the 
sole  element,  he  converts  the  statement  into  a  meaningless, 
abstract,  absurd  phrase.  The  economic  condition  is  the 
basis,  but  the  various  elements  of  the  superstructure — the 
political  forms  of  the  class  contests,  and  their  results,  the 
constitutions — the  legal  forms,  and  also  all  the  reflexes  of  these 
actual  contests  in  the  brains  of  the  participants,  the  political, 
legal,  philosophical,  theories,  the  religious  views  .  .  .  — all 
these  exert  an  influence  on  the  development  of  the  historical 
struggles,  and  in  many  instances  determine  their  form." 

From  these  statements  of  the  theory  by  its  originators  it 
will  be  seen  that  it  is  no  part  of  the  theory  that  every  phenom- 
enon of  social  evolution  can  be  explained  by  economic  facts, 
or  traced  to  economic  causes.  Much  of  the  criticism  which 
has  been  directed  against  the  theory  has  rested  on  the 
assumption  that  it  involved  a  denial  of  influence  to  all  other 
factors.  The  economic  interpretation  of  history  may  be 
defined  as~tEe~theory  that  the  rate  and  direction  of  social 
progress  are  determined  mainly,  but  not  wholly,  by  the 
economic  conditions  existing — principally  the  methods  of 
producing  wealth  and  the  social  relations  which  these 
involve. 

Economic  interpretation  and  religion:  The  theory  has 
been  especially  subject  to  attacks  and  misrepresentations 
because  of  its  assumed  hostility  to  all  forms  of  religious 
belief.  On  this  point  its  dogmatically  atheistic  friends  and 
its  dogmatically  religious  enemies  have  been  equally  guilty 
of  misunderstanding  and  misstating  the  subject  of  dis- 
cussion. Religion  is,  fundamentally,  man's  attempt  to  put 
himself  into  harmonious  relation  with,  and  to  discover  a 
satisfying  interpretation  of,  the  forces  of  the  universe.  The 
more  incomprehensible  those  forces,  the  greater  man's  need 
of  an  explanation  of  them.  The  Marxian  theory  does  not 
deny  that  men  have  been  benefited  by  seeking  an  inter- 
pretation of  the  universe,  or  that  the  quest  for  such  an 
interpretation  is  compatible  with  rational  conduct.  It  does 
not  offer  any  answer  to  the  great  questions,  Whence?  Why? 
Whither?  which  mankind  in  all  stages  of  its  development  has 


80  ELEMENTS   OF   SOCIALISM 

asked  concerning  life  itself  and  the  universe,  the  answers  to 
which  it  has  made  the  framework  of  its  religion.  Nor  does 
it  deny  that  such  questions  may  be  answered.  The  theory 
does  not  include  these  questions  and,  therefore,  cannot  in 
any  sense  be  regarded  as  a  substitute  for  religious  belief. 

The  bearing  of  the  theory  upon  religion  is  purely  inter- 
pretative. Marx  in  his  work  could  not  ignore  such  an  Im- 
portant and  universal  phenomenon  as  religion.  He  saw  that 
the  religion  of  a  people,  like  their  laws  and  their  politics, 
always  bears  a  marked  relation  to  their  mental  development 
and  their  special  environment.  The  savage  ascribes  person- 
ality to '  everything  which  exhibits  phenomena  which  he 
cannot  otherwise  explain,  and  thus  develops  an  animistic 
philosophy  involving  every  striking  fact  in  his  environment. 
To  the  Israelites  of  the  formative  period  Jahve  was  a  tribal 
god,  similar  to  the  gods  of  other  tribes  about  them,  but 
fortunately  more  powerful.  With  the  development  of  the 
national  spirit,  Jahve  became  a  King  and  Supreme  Lord 
of  the  Theocracy.  In  times  of  oppression  and  war  Jahve 
was  a  God  of  Battles,  while  under  other  conditions  be  became 
a  God  of  Peace. 

In  almost  every  religion,  the  conception  of  the  future 
life  is,  in  its  early  stages  at  least,  an  idealized  reflex  of  the 
terrestrial  life.  A  hunting  tribe  believes  in  a  future  life  in 
which  game  is  plentiful.  A  people  accustomed  to  disagree- 
able labor  and  poverty  looks  forward  to  a  future  life  of  ease 
and  luxury.  The  earthly  hierarchy  is  reproduced  in  the 
heaven,  and  a  society  of  caste  is  included  in  the  concept  of 
heaven  when  it  exists  below. 

It  is  not  a  denial  of  the  truth  of  any  form  of  religion  to 
give  a  rational  explanation  of  its  origin  and  the  forces  shaping 
its  development.  It  is  not  a  denial  of  the  doctrines  of  the 
Roman  Catholic  Church  to  explain  its  form  of  organization 
and  the  statement  of  its  creed  by  the  conditions  attending 
its  origin  and  development  within  the  Roman  Empire,  its 
political  function  as  the  successor  of  the  Empire  in  Western 
Europe,  and  the  economic  environment  of  feudalism. 
Neither  do  we  deny  the  benefits  resulting  from  the  Protestant 
revolt  by  attributing  the  revolt  itself  to  economic  condi- 
tions, rather  than  to  the  personality  and  genius  of  Martin 
Luther.  Students  of  comparative  religion  and  Biblical 


THE  ECONOMIC  INTERPRETATION  OF  HISTORY     81 

criticism  find  the  method  of  economic  interpretation  as 
helpful  and  illuminating  as  do  the  students  of  history  and 
politics. 

Economic  interpretation  and  "free  will":  It  has  been 
charged  that  the  economic  interpretation  of  history  denies 
the  freedom  of  the  will  and  presents  a  fatalistic  view  of 
society.  This  charge  arises  from  a  misconception  of  the 
basis  of  the  theory.  It  is  not  a  theory  of  the  motives  of 
individuals,  but  an  explanation  of  the  actions  of  social 
groups.  We  simply  say  that  a  social  group  will  adapt  itself 
to  economic  conditions  or  perish.  When  the  game  in  a 
certain  district  is  killed  off,  the  primitive  inhabitants  must 
turn  from  hunting  to  fishing,  or  to  a  vegetable  subsistence. 
Any  individual  is  perfectly  "free"  to  continue  his  hunting, 
but  the  chances  are  that  he  will  starve  to  death. 

The  point  may  be  illustrated  by  the  theories  of  mass 
statistics.  It  is  safe  to  predict  that  approximately  500,000 
people  will  travel  in  the  New  York  subway  to-morrow,  but 
no  individual  is  thereby  compelled  to  breathe  bad  air.  Any- 
one is  perfectly  free  to  stay  at  home  or  to  walk,  without 
appreciably  affecting  the  business  of  the  Interborough  Rapid 
Transit  Company.  The  economic  necessity  of  earning  a 
living,  however,  and  the  fact  that  for  a  million  of  people 
the  subway  is  the  most  rapid  and  convenient  means  of 
reaching  the  business  districts  where  they  are  employed, 
combine  to  make  the  use  of  the  subway  definitely  pre- 
dictable. 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  amount  of  "free  will"  which  we 
enjoy  is  vastly  over-estimated.  A  very  large  part  of  the 
actions  of  our  individual  lives  are  determined  by  the  neces- 
sity of  making  a  living.  The  bookkeeper  does  not  add 
columns  of  figures  ten  hours  a  day  because  he  loves  the  work, 
nor  does  a  miner  dig  coal  because  he  prefers  fire  damp  to 
pure  air.  Even  our  choice  of  occupations  is  not  entirely  a 
free  one.  The  chances  are  strong  that  the  son  will  follow 
the  same  general  line  of  work  as  the  father.  The  lawyer's 
son  may  become  a,  lawyer,  a  physician,  or  an  engineer,  but 
he  is  not  very  likely  to  become  a  laborer,  except  as  a  result 
of  failure  at  some  other  chosen  task.  Likewise,  our  religion 
is  rarely  our  free  and  deliberate  choice.  The  chances  of  a 
Jewish  child  entering  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  are  slight, 


82  ELEMENTS   OF  SOCIALISM 

but  a  child  of  Roman  Catholic  parents  is  very  likely  to 
follow  his  parents  into  that  church. 

Economic  interpretation  and  ethics:  According  to  the 
theory  of  economic  causation,  the  economic  basis  of  any 
society  is  largely  influential  in  determining  its  moral  con- 
sciousness. That  which  is  immoral  and  socially  condemned 
is  that  which  is  conceived  to  be  harmful  to  the  social  group, 
either  in  the  present  or  in  the  future.  Since  any  interference 
with  the  prevailing  method  of  gaining  a  livelihood  must 
threaten  the  life  of  the  group,  conformity  to  the  conceived 
economic  interests  of  a  group  becomes  its  standard  of  virtue. 
Thus  in  primitive  societies  virtue  involves  loyalty  to  fellow 
tribesmen  and  the  slaughter  of  enemies,  physical  strength, 
courage,  sacrifices  to  the  mysterious  powers  which  control 
subsistence,  and,  where  living  conditions  are  very  hard, 
the  killing  of  the  aged  and  infirm.  In  more  advanced 
societies,  respect  for  the  private  property  of  men  in  goods, 
slaves  and  wives  becomes  virtuous.^  As  economic  life  becomes 
more  complex,  the  moral  code  is  expanded,  involving  a 
multitude  of  social  relations  unknown  to  men  of  an  earlier 
stage  of  social  development. 

Class  ethics:  Just  as  the  vertical  division  of  society  into 
tribes  and  nations  results  in  tribal  and  national  moral  codes, 
so  the  horizontal  stratification  of  society  into  social  classes 
brings  about  distinct  class  ethical  codes.  When  it  was  immoral 
to  kill  a  freeman  it  was  no  infraction  of  the  moral  code,  no 
offense  to  the  prevailing  moral  sense  of  the  group,  to  kill 
a  slave.  The  feeling  of  solidarity  and  common  interests 
involves  only  the  class,  and  since  in  a  class  state  it  becomes 
almost  impossible  to  conceive  of  any  action  which  would 
benefit  all  classes  equally,  the  classes  come  to  have  divergent 
codes  of  ethics.  But  it  is  always  the  ethical  code  of  the  ruling 
class  which  constitutes  the  recognized  standard  of  morality 
at  any  given  time.  In  the  words  of  John  Stuart  Mill : 

"Wherever  there  is  an  ascendant  class,  a  large  portion 
of  the  morality  emanates  from  its  class  interests  and  its  class 
feelings  of  superiority.  The  morality  between  Spartans  and 
Helots,  between  planters  and  negroes,  between  princes  and 
subjects,  between  nobles  and  roturiers,  between  men  and 
women,  has  been  for  the  most  Dart  the  creation  of  these 
class  interests  and  feelings."1 

1John  Stuart  Mill,  On  Liberty. 


THE  ECONOMIC  INTERPRETATION  OF  HISTORY      83 

The  capitalist  regards  as  virtuous  honesty  and  fidelity 
to  terms  of  contracts  as  between  members  of  his  class,  and 
on  the  part  of  others  toward  members  of  his  class,  but  is 
not  strongly  condemned  by  his  fellows  for  himself  breaking 
a  wage  agreement  or  for  fleecing  a  "lamb"  on  the  stock 
market.  Charity  is  a  virtue,  and  direct  personal  injury, 
even  to  a  worker  or  any  of  his  family,  is  wrong;  but  under- 
mining the  health,  destroying  the  lives  and  impoverishing 
the  workers  in  the  "legitimate"  pursuit  of  business  does  not 
infringe  the  moral  code. 

The  wage-working  class  is  also  developing  a  code  of  ethics 
based  on  class  loyalty,  class  solidarity  and  class  conscious- 
ness. The  wage-worker  regards  as  virtuous  strict  fidelity 
to  class  interests  and  consistent  opposition  to  the  special 
interests  of  the  capitalists,  and  detests  the  "scab"  as  a 
traitor  to  his  class.  The  divergence  of  the  ethical  standards 
of  the  two  classes  is  very  clearly  shown  by  the  newspaper 
comments  on  the  occasional  acts  of  violence  by  strikers  and 
their  sympathetic  allies.  An  assault  upon  a  strike-breaker 
is  regarded  with  horror  by  the  capitalist  press,  while  in  the 
labor  press  it  is  very  often  condoned  and  excused.  The 
strike-breaker  has  violated  class  ethics  in  a  struggle  which 
involves  the  most  fundamental  interests,  of  the  strikers  and 
their  families.  The  law  does  not  enforce  the  ethical  code  of 
the  working  classT'because  it  is  the  subject  class,  and  the 
law  always  reflects  the  ethical  concepts  of  the  ruling  class. 
So  the  striking  workman  must  either  submit  to  defeat 
through  the  employment  of  men  of  his  own  class  who  violate 
its  ethics,  or  resort  to  the  primitive  methods  of  enforcing 
the  moral  code. 

Superiority  of  working  class  ethics:  While  any  code  of 
class  ethics  must  necessarily  have  many  shortcomings,  the 
ethical  code  of  the  working  class  is  infinitely  superior  to  that 
of  the  capitalist  minority.  It  is  superior,  in  the  first  place, 
because  it  is  formulated  in  the  interest  of  the  great  majority, 
while  the  ethical  code  of  the  capitalist  class  is  formulated  in 
the  interest  of  a  minority.  It  is  superior,  in  the  second  place, 
because  it  assails  with  the  greatest  force  of  numbers  possible 
in  a  class  state  the  evils  which  injure  the  greatest  number  of 
persons.  The  well-being  of  the  mass  of  mankind  is  advanced 
in  proportion  to  the  degree  in  which  the  ethical  code  which 


84  ELEMENTS   OF  SOCIALISM 

reflects  the  interests  of  an  increasing  proportion  of  the  whole 
mass  is  recognized.  This  is  only  another  way  of  saying  that 
the  maximum  of  satisfaction  will  result  from  the  moral  code 
which  is  the  reflex  of  the  maximum  of  human  interests. 
As  an  ideal  no  ethical  code  based  upon  class  dominance  can 
satisfy.  The  perfect  ethical  code  will  not  be  bounded  by 
class  interests.  The  ethical  code  of  the  working  class  is  the 
nearest  approach  to  that  ideal  we  have  yet  attained,  for  it 
reflects  the  largest  proportion  of  the  totality  of  human 
interests. 

Economic  interpretation  and  law:  In  primitive  society  the 
ethical  code  was  established  by  custom  and  its  violation 
punished  directly  by  the  group.  As  society  becomes  more 
complex,  custom  develops  into  law  which  defines  in  detail 
the  interrelations  of  men  and  states.  Laws  vary  infinitely 
according  to  time  and  place,  and  their  Form  and  content  are 
determined  largely  by  the  economic  interests  of  the  law- 
making  class.  Laws  not  only  reflect  the  economic  and  social 
conditions  of  the  time,  but  are  designed  for  the  purpose  of 
preserving  those  conditions  in  so  far  as  they  are  regarded 
as  being  necessary  to  the  maintenance  of  the  rule  and  power 
of  the  ruling  class.  This  fact  was  frankly  asserted  in  the 
class  legislation  of  all  ages  previous  to  the  capitalist  era. 
The  slave  or  the  serf  received  little  or  no  consideration, 
even  when  in  the  majority.  Law  is  therefore  essentially 
conservative,  lagging  behing  the  social  advance  and  rarely 
recognizing  a  new  condition  until  it  has  become  established 
through  force  or  the  effective  threat  of  force. 

The  laws  of  capitalist  society  are  likewise  designed  to 
preserve  the  existing  conditions  essentially  unchanged.  The 
greater  part  of  our  legal  codes  are  taken  up  with  rules  for 
the  protection  and  definition  of  private  property.  The 
assumption  that  all  men  are  equal  before  the  law  is  made  to 
operate  in  favor  of  the  property-owner,  since  the  machinery 
of  the  law  is  chiefly  concerned  with  his  protection,  and  does 
not  recognize  the  weaker  position  of  the  poor  litigant  who 
cannot  employ  the  best  legal  talent. 

Class  influence  upon  legal  codes:  The  influence  of  class 
is  strongly  marked  in  all  our  legal  codes.  _Ihfi-old  principles 
have  been  strengthened  with  every  change  in  property 
forms,  but  the  corresponding  interests  of  the  wage-workers 


THE  ECONOMIC  INTERPRETATION  OF  HISTORY     85 

have  been  neglected-  In  the  matter  of  the  wage  contract 
and  the  responsibility  of  the  employers  for  the  dangers  of 
employment  the  law  rarely  interferes,  except  in  a  half- 
hearted way,  while  the  minutest  details  of  property  rights 
are  covered  by  statutes.  When  a  law  is  made  to  apply  to 
both  labor  and  capital,  as  in  the  case  of  the  Sherman  Anti- 
Trust  Act,  it  is  enforced  against  labor,  but  is  ineffective 
against  capital. 

Thus  are  laws  enacted  and  enforced  in  conformity  with  the 
economic  interests  of  the  dominant  class,  and  the  only 
progressive  steps  taken  conform  to  the  recognized  economic 
interests  of  the  majority,  the  working  class,  which,  in  the 
countries  where  manhood  suffrage  obtains,  is  able  to  obtain 
concessions  by  effectively  threatening  the  supremacy  of  the 
ruling  class. 

The  great  man  in  history :  To  what  extent  are  individuals 
responsible  for  great  social  changes?  No  one  denies  that 
Napoleon  Bonaparte  influenced  the  course  of  European 
history,  or  that  Karl  Marx  influenced  the  development  of 
the  Socialist  movement.  But  a  man  in  the  present  day, 
having  all  the  qualities  and  gifts  of  Napoleon,  could  not 
influence  the  history  of  Europe  in  the  same  way  or  to  the 
same  extent.  If  Karl  Marx  had  lived  before  the  Industrial 
Revolution  he  would  not  have  formulated  the  Socialist 
theories  which  are  associated  with  his  name.  On  the  other 
hand,  Europe  would  have  developed  in  political  and  indus- 
trial organization  substantially  as  it  has  done  if  Napoleon 
had  never  left  Corsica,  and  there  would  have  been  a  Socialist 
movement  and  an  economic  interpretation  of  history  if 
Marx  had  never  lived.  It  is  only  when  economic  conditions 
are  ripe  that  individuals  appear  to  exert  a  determining 
influence  upon  historical  developments.  Great  individualities 
which  profoundly  influence  the  course  of  historical  develop- 
ment do  not  exist  of  themselves,  independent  of  conditions. 
They  are  the  products  of  favorable  combinations  of  economic 
and  social  circumstances,  of  a  perception  of  needs  formed  in 
the  matrices  of  such  combinations  of  circumstance,  or  of 
crises  which  conduce  to  the  highest  development  of  qualities 
of  initiative  and  leadership  which  would  otherwise  either 
remain  dormant  or  be  directed  to  other  ends.  There  are 
certain  limits  between  which  a  man  may  freely  act  and  within 


86  ELEMENTS   OF   SOCIALISM 

whicn  he  may  succeed,  but  these  limits  are  defined  by 
economic  and  social  conditions.  Even  the  limited  area  of 
freedom  indicated  is  in  fact  still  further  restricted  by  such 
factors  as  heredity. 

Marx  tells  of  an  inventor  who  devised  a  multiple  loom  as 
early  as  the  fifteenth  century.  Perhaps  in  one  sense  he  was 
greater  than  Hargreaves,  but  the  economic  conditions  were 
not  ripe  for  such  a  loom  and  the  man  was  put  to  death  and 
his  invention  destroyed.  When  the  domestic  system  had 
developed  and  the  embryonic  capitalist  forms  were  ready 
then  the  power  loom  was  developed,  and  its  inventors  have 
been  universally  acknowledged  as  great  men. 

Applications  of  the  theory  to  American  history:  The 
greatest  value  of  the  theory  of  the  economic  interpretation 
of  history  lies  in  the  fact  that  by  means  of  it  we  can  explain 
the  origin  and  development  of  the  various  stages  of  social 
_I_evolution  and  their  relation  to  each  other.  In  the  preceding 
chapter  we  have  sketched  the  main  lines  of  social  evolution 
and  seen  that  each  fundamental  change  in  the  organization 
of  society,  and  even  each  general  advance  in  culture,  arose 
from  changes  of  an  economic  character  to  which  they  can 
be  traced  with  practical  certainty. 

But  while  this  is  the  chief  value  of  the  theory,  it  also  has 
value  as  an  explanation  of  a  large  part  of  the  important 
specific  events  of  history.  For  our  present  purpose  it  will 
be  sufficient  to  consider,  briefly,  a  few  of  the  most  conspicuous 
events  in  American  history  in  the  light  of  the  theory. 

It  was  the  commerce  of  the  handicraft  stage,  checked  by 
the  pastoral  barbarians  of  Turkey  and  Persia,  which  led 
to  the  imperative  demand  for  a  new  route  to  India  and  sent 
forth  such  adventurers  as  Columbus,  Vasco  da  Gama  and 
John  Cabot.  The  Norse  discovery  of  America  about  the 
year  1000  was  futile  and  without  influence  upon  the  develop- 
ment of  Europe  because  there  had  not  yet  arisen  the  need 
for  a  new  outlet  for  trade  and  colonization. 

Every  war  which  the  United  States  has  fought  has  been  of 
economic  origin.  The  Revolutionary  War  was  due  to  the 
economic  exploitation  of  America  by  England.  The  war 
of  1812  was  due  to  England's  interference  with  our  commerce. 
The  Mexican  War  was  due  to  land  hunger  on  the  part  of  the 
agricultural  South  which  was  losing  in  the  competition  with 


THE  ECONOMIC  INTERPRETATION  OF  HISTORY     87 

the  industrial  North,  a  competition  more  bitter  even  than 
that  which  preceded  the  Protestant  revolt  in  Europe  because 
it  was  between  the  agricultural  stage  of  social  evolution  and 
the  industrial  stage,  whereas  in  the  earlier  European  struggle 
the  conflict  was  between  two  stages  very  much  nearer  to 
each  other,  the  agricultural  stage  and  the  handicraft  stage. 
The  South  must  extend  its  area  and  its  institutions,  including 
slavery,  or  be  crushed  by  the  North.  Mexico  was  the 
unhappy  victim.  The  Civil  War,  while  it  arose  over  the 
right  of  secession,  apparently  an  exclusively  political  ques- 
tion, was  in  reality  the  culmination  of  the  same  great  struggle 
between  two  different  and  widely  separated  economic  stages, 
the  agricultural  and  the  industrial,  and  ended,  as  was 
inevitable,  in  the  victory  of  the  higher  stage.  The  Spanish- 
American  War  was  fundamentally  due  to  the  prevention  of 
the  free  development  of  the  Cuban  sugar  industry  through 
Spanish  misrule,  and  the  consequent  interruption  of  a  profit- 
able American  trade. 

Objections  to  the  theory:  The  principal  criticisms  of  the 
economic  interpretation  of  history  can  be  grouped  as  follows : 
(1)  the  alleged  antecedence  of  social  organization  to  the 
economic  environment;  (2)  the  claim  that  the  theory  is  an 
insufficient  explanation  of  the  facts;  (3)  the  claim  that  it  is 
"sordid." 

Concerning  the  first  criticism,  it  is  a  sufficient  reply  to 
state  the  fact  that  the  question  of  the  priority  of  society  or 
environment  is  not  involved  in  the  theory.  No  social  change 
can  take  place  without  the  existence  of  both  society  and 
environment.  A  certain  amount  of  variation  is  possible 
in  a  static  environment,  but  when  environmental  changes 
take  place  it  is  the  best  adapted  forms  which  survive  the 
new  conditions.  Social  groups  can  also  transform  their 
environment  within  narrow  limits,  as  Holland  has  been 
transformed  by  its  people  and  as  the  desert  is  made  productive 
by  irrigation.  But  it  is  just  in  these  cases  that  environ- 
mental influence  is  most  pronounced.  Everyone  knows 
how  the  history  of  Holland  has  been  conditioned  and  deter- 
mined in  conformity  with  its  economic  conditions,  and 
irrigation  at  once  makes  possible  the  existence  of  a  civilized 
society  where  it  was  not  possible  before. 

The  second  criticism,  that  the  theory  is  insufficient  as  an 


88  ELEMENTS   OF   SOCIALISM 

explanation,  is  only  valid  when  directed  against  exaggera- 
tions of  the  theory.  The  criticisms  of  Eduard  Bernstein  and 
otner  members  of  the  "Revisionist"  group  within  the  inter- 
national Socialist  movement,  for  example,  apply  not  so 
much  to  the  theory  itself,  as  Marx  and  Engels  developed  it, 
as  to  the  crude  applications  of  it  by  some  of  their  disciples. 
As  Frederick  Engels  himself  has  remarked,  "It  is  unfor- 
tunately only  too  common  for  a  man  to  think  he  has  perfectly 
understood  a  theory  and  is  able  forthwith  to  apply  it,  as 
soon  as  he  has  made  the  chief  propositions  his  own." 1 

It  may  be  freely  admitted — as  Engels  himself  has  done — 
that  in  their  earlier  statements  of  the  theory  Marx  and 
Engels  were  not  always  careful  to  make  it  clear  beyond  the 
possibility  of  honest  misconception  that  they  recognized  the 
influence  of  spiritual  and  other  non-economic  factors  upon 
historical  development.  But  he  who  would  either  employ 
or  judge  a  theory  must  take  it  in  its  most  developed  form, 
that  is,  in  the  form  which  comprises  the  fullest  and  maturest 
thought  of  the  minds  responsible  for  the  theory.  Criticisms 
of  the  theory  which  confine  themselves  to  the  earlier  and 
cruder  statements  of  it,  and  ignore  the  later  developments 
and  improved  statements  of  it,  is  not  honest  criticism.  It 
may  also  be  admitted  that,  even  in  the  statements  of  the 
theory  by  Engels  toward  the  end  of  his  life,  the  sense  of 
proportion  is  not  perfectly  maintained,  and  that  the  sphere 
of  influence  ascribed  to  spiritual  and  ideological  factors  is 
too  limited.  But  these  things  do  not  touch  the  essentials 
of  the  theory.  It  is  a  sufficient  reply  to  the  objection  that 
the  theory  does  not  afford  a  sufficient  explanation  of  the 
whole  progress  of  human  history,  to  point  to  the  fact  that 
neither  Marx  nor  Engels  claimed  that  it  did  anything  of  the 
sort.  Jft  is  essentially  a  criticism  directed  against  a  mis- 
conception and  misstatement  of  the  theory,  rather  than 
against  the  theory  itself. 

Not  much  time  need  be  wasted  in  a  discussion  of  the 
criticism  that  the  theory  is  sordid,  and  that  it  is  unworthy 
of  humanity  to  attribute  its  activity  and  its  progress  to 
economic  conditions.  The  question  to  ask  is  not  "Is  the 
theory  pleasing?"  but  "Is  it  true?"  We  might  as  well 
deny  that  the  beauty  of  the  rose  is  made  possible  only 

1  Engels,  Anti-Diihring. 


THE  ECONOMIC  INTERPRETATION  OF  HISTORY     89 

through  the  unlovely  soil  in  which  its  roots  are  sustained, 
as  refuse  to  admit  that  the  finest  idealism  may  be  rooted  in 
the  commonplace  processes  of  making  a  living. 

General  acceptance  of  the  theory:  Through  the  general 
acceptance  of  the  principle  of  evolution  and  the  idea  of  the 
continuity  of  the  historical  process,  the  economic  interpreta- 
tion of  history  has  gained  acceptance  far  beyond  the  limits 
of  the  Socialist  movement.  People  may  differ  as  to  the 
application  of  the  theory  and  the  conclusions  to  be  drawn 
from  it,  but  there  is  no  longer  any  great  opposition  to  the 
theory  in  its  application  to  the  great  social  transformations 
of  the  past,  to  religious  forms,  to  ethical  and  legal  codes 
and  to  a  large  number  of  important  specific  historical  events. 

In  the  light  of  the  theory  we  are  now  hi  a  position  to 
discuss  the  development  of  the  economic  organization  of 
society  as  the  basis  for  a  further  treatment  of  Socialist 
theories  and  ideals. 


90  ELEMENTS   OF   SOCIALISM 

SUMMARY 

1.  Socialists  regard  economic  forces  as  the  chief  factors  in  the  bring- 
ing about  of  social  change. 

2.  The  Economic  Interpretation  does  not  exclude  the  "spiritual 
factors";  it  is  not  fatalistic  and  does  not  deny  free  will. 

3.  The  economic  factors  largely  determine  religious  forms,  ethical 
standards  and  the  content  of  legal  codes. 

4.  The  Economic  Interpretation  of  History  applies  primarily  to  the 
explanation  of  stages  in  social  evolution,  but  at  the  same  time  it 
directly  explains  many  specific  historical  events. 


QUESTIONS 

1.  What  was  the  origin  of  the  theory  of  the  Economic  Interpretation 
of  History? 

2.  Why  is  the  term  "economic"  preferable  to  "materialistic"  in 
this  connection? 

3.  What  factors  other  than  the  economic  have  influenced  history? 

4.  In  what  ways  have  the  economic  factors  influenced  religious 
forms?    Ethical  codes? 

5.  How  are  economic  class  distinctions  reflected  in  legal  codes? 

6.  What  is  meant  by  the  "Great  Man"  theory  of  history? 

7.  Illustrate  the  economic  interpretation  theory  by  events  in  Ameri- 
can history.     In  English  history. 

8.  What  are  the  chief  objections  to  the  theory  and  how  do  Socialists 
answer  them? 


LITERATURE 

Hillquit,  M.,  Socialism  in  Theory  and  Practice,  Chap.  Ill  and  IV. 

Kautsky,  K.,  Ethics  and  the  Materialistic  Conception  of  History. 

Marx,  Karl,  Capital.  Contribution  to  the  Critique  of  Political 
Economy,  Preface. 

Rogers,  J.  E.  T.,  The  Economic  Interpretation  of  History. 

Seligman,  E.  R.  A.,  The  Economic  Interpretation  of  History. 

Simons,  A.  M.,  Social  Forces  in  American  History. 

Spargo,  John,  Socialism,  a  Summary  and  Interpretation  of  Socialist 
Principles,  Chap.  IV. 


CHAPTER  X 

INDUSTRIAL   EVOLUTION 

The  economic  stages:  Any  classification  of  economic 
history  must  necessarily  be  somewhat  arbitrary,  for  the 
whole  process  of  development  has  been  subject  to  variation. 
In  different  parts  of  the  world  the  social  groups  have  lived 
under  varied  environmental  conditions. 

Some  writers  have  divided  economic  history  into  stages 
on  the  basis  of  labor  forms,  as: 

(1)  Independent  or  communal  labor  with  slaughter  of 
enemies. 

(2)  Slavery  and  serfdom. 

(3)  Wage-labor  regulated  by  individual  contract. 

(4)  Collective  bargaining. 

Other  writers  have  taken  the  process  of  exchange  as  the 
basis  of  classification  and  describe  three  stages: 

(1)  "Truck"  or  barter  economy. 

(2)  Money  economy. 

(3)  Credit  economy. 

Perhaps  the  most  common  classification  is  that  based  on 
production  and  the  increasing  control  of  man  over  nature. 
The  division  is  into  five  stages: 

(1)  The  stage  of  direct  appropriation. 

(2)  The  pastoral  stage. 

(3)  The  agricultural  stage. 

(4)  The  handicraft  stage. 

(5)  The  industrial  stage. 

Finally,  the  German  economist,  Buecher,  classifies  economic 
history  on  the  basis  of  the  development  of  the  economic  unit: 

(1)  The  stage  of  household  economy. 

(2)  The  stage  of  town  economy. 

(3)  The  stage  of  national  economy. 

(4)  The  stage  of  world  economy. 

These  classifications  are  not  at  all  conflicting,  and  all  are 

91 


92  ELEMENTS   OF   SOCIALISM 

suggestive.  The  two  last  classifications,  however,  best 
explain  the  historical  process. 

The  stage  of  direct  appropriation:  This  is  the  primitive 
stage  of  human  development  in  which  man  lived  by  hunting 
and  fishing,  and  by  the  vegetable  foods,  such  as  nuts,  fruit 
and  roots,  which  could  be  obtained  without  cultivation. 
It  corresponds  to  the  epoch  of  savagery  in  social  evolution. 
Exchange  and  the  transfer  of  goods  are  unimportant. 
Primitive  communism  is  the  rule  and  there  are  no  sharply 
marked  social  classes. 

There  is  a  marked  difference  between  tribes  in  this  stage 
who  live  chiefly  by  hunting  and  those  who  life  chiefly  by 
fishing  or  subsist  on  a  vegetable  diet.  The  hunting  tribes 
are  more  warlike,  occupy  a  larger  territory  and  are  generally 
of  a  higher  physical  type.  Their  dwellings  are  very  simple 
and  usually  temporary.  Fishing  tribes  are  peaceful  and 
occupy  restricted  territories  near  the  sea  coast.  They  build 
permanent  dwellings  and  construct  boats  and  fishing  imple- 
ments. 

The  pastoral  stage:  This  stage  is  marked  by  the  domes- 
tication of  animals,  and  the  care  of  large  flocks  of  sheep 
and  herds  of  cattle.  Pastoral  groups  are  usually  migratory 
or  nomadic,  wandering  from  place  to  place  in  search  of  the 
best  pasturage,  and  living  in  tents.  This  stage  corresponds 
with  the  middle  stage  of  barbarism  in  Europe  and  Asia. 
The  life  of  the  Hebrew  patriarchs,  Abraham,  Isaac  and 
Jacob,  as  described  in  the  book  of  Genesis,  is  a  perfect 
example  of  life  in  the  pastoral  stage. 

Slavery  became  general  in  the  pastoral  stage  and  the  con- 
ception of  private  property  was  greatly  extended.  Social 
distinctions  became  clearer.  Men  of  great  wealth  like 
Abraham  were  powerful  chiefs,  and  were  absolute  rulers  of 
the  households  of  wives,  concubines,  descendants,  followers, 
and  slaves.  Private  property  in  land  was  not  yet  generally 
recognized  and  there  was  little  commerce.  J3uch  commerce 
as  there  was  took  the  form  of  barter. 

The  agricultural  stage:  The  agricultural  stage  opens  up 
an  entirely  new  field  of  activity  to  man.  Having  already 
learned  the  food  uses  of  fruits,  grains,  nuts  and  roots,  and 
how  to  manage  animals,  he  now  combines  his  knowledge  and 
becomes  a  plant  producer.  A  denser  population  becomes 


INDUSTRIAL   EVOLUTION  93 

possible.  Fertile  valleys  like  those  of  the  Tigris-Euphrates 
and  the  Nile  become  the  homes  of  millions  of  men.  The  idea 
of  land  ownership  first  developed  in  the  agricultural  stage, 
although  even  then  ownership  by  the  village  community, 
rather  than  by  the  individual,  was  the  rule.  Slavery  grad- 
ually developed  into  serfdom,  a  condition  of  servitude  hi  which 
the  subject  enjoyed  more  privileges  than  under  slavery,  but 
was  not  free  to  migrate  at  will.  Commerce  grew  in  impor- 
tance, mainly  because  the  wealthy  class  grew  in  strength  and 
demanded  foreign  luxuries.  The  denser  population  made 
necessary  a  more  efficient  government  and  more  detailed 
laws.  This  is  the  stage  of  the  Babylonian  Code  of  Ham- 
murabi and  of  the  Mosaic  law.  It  was  during  the  agricultural 
stage  that  the  civilizations  of  antiquity  developed. 

The  agricultural  stage  persisted  through  the  early  Middle 
Ages  and  developed  into  the  so-called  manorial  economy 
and  its  political  counterpart,  the  feudal  system.  In  the 
thirteenth  century  the  population  of  England  was  largely 
concentrated  in  villages  or  manors  ruled  by  a  lord,  to  whom 
the  people  were  bound.  The  land  of  the  manor  was  divided 
into  three  great  fields  which  were  cultivated  in  rotation, 
one  always  lying  fallow.  Each  villein  tenant  held  a  strip 
of  land  in  each  of  these  fields  which  he  was  entitled  to 
cultivate  and  was  required  to  devote  a  part  of  each  week 
to  the  cultivation  of  the  part  of  the  land  especially  reserved 
for  the  lord  of  the  manor. 

The  handicraft  stage:  With  the  development  of  the  cities 
and  the  commerce  of  the  later  Middle  Ages,  the  trades 
and  hand  manufacture  became  predominant  and  the  agri- 
cultural organization  as  represented  by  the  feudal  system 
and  the  manor  began  to  decline  in  relative  importance. 
Towns  which  had  become  centres  of  trade  won  their  inde- 
pendence from  the  feudal  lords,  and  the  handicraftsman  who 
had  long  plied  his  trade  as  a  servant  on  the  feudal  estate 
gained  an  independent  and  powerful  position. 

As  the  town  was  first  a  trading  centre  the  first  rulers  of  the 
towns  were  the  merchants,  who  hi  the  twelfth  century  in 
England  were  organized  into  guilds  which  at  once  protected 
trade  and  formed  the  basis  of  the  political  organization  of 
the  towns.  As  the  craftsmen  grew  in  numbers  and  importance 
they  were  admitted  into  the  merchant  guilds,  which  they 


94  ELEMENTS   OF   SOCIALISM 

later  supplanted  with  their  own  craft  guilds.  These  craft 
guilds  grew  so  powerful  that  by  the  fourteenth  century  they 
were  the  real  rulers  of  the  English  cities. 
.  Each  trade  has  its  own  guild  of  masters  presided  over  by 
its  own  alderman,  who  in  conjunction  with  the  aldermen 
of  other  guilds  formed  the  governing  body  of  the  town. 
Membership  in  a  guild  was  usually  confined  to  those  who 
had  served  their  apprenticeship  and  later  had  worked  as 
journeymen  and  become  masters.  As  the  system  became 
more  rigid  it  became  increasingly  difficult  for  journeymen 
who  were  entitled  to  join  the  guilds  and  thus  become  masters 
to  secure  admission  to  membership  in  the  guilds  without 
powerful  influence  to  assist  them.  For  their  own  protection 
the  journeymen  organized  other  guilds  of  their  own,  the 
"Bachelors'  Companies,"  which  in  organization  and  tactics 
were  somewhat  similar  to  a  modern  trade  union. 

The  next  step  in  industrial  evolution,  which  bridges  the 
gap  between  the  true  handicraft  stage  and  the  industrial 
stage  is  known  as  the  domestic  system.  The  guild  master 
became  a  petty  capitalist  who  received  the  raw  materials 
from  a  middleman  and  gave  them  out  to  artisans  who  lived 
largely  in  the  country  and  devoted  a  part  of  their  time  to 
agriculture.  These  artisans,  who  were  the  successors  of 
the  journeyman,  had  no  control  over  the  marketing  of  the 
product  of  their  labor. 

The  industrial  revolution:  Then  came  the  sudden  and 
fundamental  change  in  methods  of  production  which  fol- 
lowed the  invention  of  the  steam  engine  and  power  machinery 
in  the  last  half  of  the  eighteenth  century.  Every  previous 
change  in  the  forms  of  industry  had  been  so  slow  as  to 
cover  many  generations  in  the  process  of  transition,  but  this 
was  rapid  and  relatively  sudden,  a  true  industrial  revolution. 

The  manufacture  of  textiles  was  at  this  time  the  most 
important  industry  in  England.  Under  the  handicraft  and 
the  domestic  systems,  all  the  work  of  spinning  and  weaving 
had  to  be  laboriously  done  by  hand.  The  first  of  the  series 
of  great  inventions  came  in  1738,  when  Kay  invented  the 
flying  shuttle.  Then  came  Hargreaves'  spinning  jenny,  in 
1767,  then  Arkwright's  water  frame  and  the  combination 
of  the  two  into  the  "mule"  by  Crompton.  Cartwright  then 
developed  the  power  loom  and  Whitney's  cotton  gin  increased 


INDUSTRIAL   EVOLUTION  95 

the  supply  of  raw  material.  With  the  application  of  steam 
power  to  spinning  and  weaving  the  domestic  system  came 
to  an  end.  It  was  no  longer  profitable  to  send  out  work 
to  be  manufactured  in  homes.  The  workmen  had  to  be 
gathered  together  into  factories  where  the  power  could  be 
economically  applied.  The  master  craftsman,  who  had 
become  the  merchant  under  the  domestic  system,  giving  out 
work  and  selling  the  product,  now  became  the  owner  of 
the  factory,  while  the  journeyman,  with  his  ranks  recruited 
from  the  peasants  of  the  country  estates,  became  the  factory 
worker,  the  proletarian  of  the  modern  industrial  world. 

The  transition  came  so  rapidly  as  to  cause  a  great  deal  of 
distress  and  social  anarchy.  An  entirely  new  set  of  econpmic 
conditions  had  to  be  faced,  and  governments  and  laws  formed 
under  the  old  system  were  incapable  of  adaptation  to  the 
needs  of  the  worker  for  protection.  The  new  machines  could 
be  operated  by  children  better  than  by  the  old  weavers  and 
spinners,  and  the  struggles  of  the  displaced  workers  to  gain 
a  livelihood  form  one  of  the  most  tragic  chapters  in  the 
history  of  industrial  development.  Weavers  who  had  made 
a  comfortable  living  by  the  labor  of  eight  hours  a  day, 
supplemented  by  the  products  of  their  little  farms,  now  could 
barely  keep  from  starvation  by  working  sixteen  hours  out 
of  twenty-four.  Children  had  always  worked  under  the 
old  system,  but  the  work  had  been  done  at  home,  and  was 
divided  between  the  apprentice  work  at  the  loom  and  the 
outdoor  work  of  the  farm.  Under  the  new  system  they  were 
massed  together  in  factories  under  masters  who  had  no 
personal  interest  in  them,  and  worked  fourteen  hours  a  day 
under  frightfully  unsanitary  conditions.  The  first  attempts 
of  workmen  to  organize  unions  were  checked  by  stringent 
and  often  savage  laws.  The  popular  resentment  very  natu- 
rally led  to  machine-breaking  riots.  The  old  land-owning 
aristocracy  was  obliged  to  yield  political  power  to  the  new 
lords  of  industry  and  England  became  a  capitalist  state. 

The  industrial  stage :  This  is  the  stage  of  economic  evolu- 
tion in  which  the  civilized  world  lives  to-day.  Production 
is  carried  on  by  means  of  power  machinery  on  a  large  scale. 
This  machinery  is  owned  and  controlled  by  a  distinct  class. 
Industry  is  so  specialized  that  no  one  workman  turns  out  a 
finished  product  which  is  to  any  large  extent  his  own  work. 


96  ELEMENTS   OF   SOCIALISM 

Trade  and  commerce  have  been  developed  until  markets 
are  international,  and  a  credit  system  has  taken  the  place  of 
cash  payment. 

But  although  our  age  is  essentially  industrial,  all  of  the 
other  stages  of  production  are  still  represented  at  the  present 
day.  Not  only  are  there  tribes  and  peoples  in  various  parts 
of  the  world  who  represent  all  of  the  earlier  stages  of  indus- 
trial evolution,  but  in  our  own  civilization  all  the  older  forms 
of  production  are  to  be  found.  The  stage  of  direct  appropria- 
tion is  represented  wherever  there  are  things  of  value  to  be 
taken  by  man  direct  from  nature,  for  his  own  use.  Hunting 
and  fishing  are  by  no  means  abandoned.  The  pastoral  stage 
is  represented  by  the  great  cattle  and  sheep  ranges  of  the 
West  and  of  South  America  and  Australia.  Agriculture  never 
even  declined  in  absolute  importance,  although  other  forms 
of  production  have  developed  since  the  agricultural  stage 
which,  because  of  their  greater  relative  importance,  have 
become  the  characteristic  and  dominant  economic  forces. 
Handicrafts  are  still  carried  on  wherever  machine  methods 
have  not  been  introduced,  as  in  bricklaying,  and  for  certain 
purposes  nearly  all  the  old  crafts  are  carried  on  to-day. 
The  domestic  system  has  degenerated  into  the  sweatshop 
and  become  one  of  the  worst  forms  of  modern  exploitation. 
Old  forms  do  not  die.  They  simply  change  in  relative 
importance. 

The  development  of  the  economic  unit:  Along  with  the 
increase  in  the  power  of  man  to  control  the  forces  of  nature 
has  come  a  progressive  enlargement  of  the  economic  unit. 
The  number  and  variety  of  wants  has  continually  increased, 
and  a  progressively  greater  and  more  intricate  organization 
of  society  becomes  necessary.  The  stages  in  this  process 
may  be  described  as  follows: 

(a)  Independent  household  economy:  Production  was  at 
tirst,  and  even  later  in  the  pastoral  and  agricultural  stages, 
carried  on  by  the  household.  The  products  were  likewise 
consumed  by  the  household.  Trade  and  commerce  were 
unimportant  before  the  handicraft  stage.  The  Greek  house- 
hold from  which  we  get  our  word  "economy"  was  an  inde- 
pendent economic  unit.  Agricultural  products  were  grown 
for  use  and  not  for  commerce.  Slaves  skilled  in  all  trades 
were  employed  and  there  was  very  little  which  any  member 


INDUSTRIAL   EVOLUTION  97 

or  retainer  of  the  household  needed  to  get  from  beyond  the 
estate.  The  life  of  a  savage  or  barbarous  family  is  a  more 
simple  example.  The  man  does  the  hunting  and  fighting, 
the  woman  makes  the  clothing,  prepares  the  food  and  bears 
the  burdens.  The  family  can  exist  comfortably  without 
any  dependence  upon  the  rest  of  the  world. 

(6)  Town  economy:  With  the  building  of  cities  and  the 
diversification  of  industry,  the  independent  economy  became 
impracticable.  It  was  more  profitable  for  the  weaver  to 
give  all  his  time  to  his  trade  and  buy  his  food  supplies  else- 
where, giving  in  exchange  his  cloths  or  the  money  received 
from  their  sale.  But  it  was  no  more  than  an  extension  of 
the  household  economy  for  little  was  used  which  was  not 
produced  within  or  near  the  town.  Commerce  was  largely 
local,  and  the  town  could  exist  without  regard  to  the  State 
or  other  towns. 

(c)  National   economy:   With    the    improvement  of   the 
means  of  communication,  and  the  perception  of  the  advan- 
tages of  trade  between  cities,  the  nation  became  the  economic 
unit.    In  England  the  products  of  the  mines  of  the  South- 
west were  exchanged  for  the  agricultural  products  and  the 
manufactures  of  the  East  and  North.     The  town  was  no 
longer  self-sufficient  and  independent.    But  the  nation  still 
produced  all  that  it  needed  to  consume.     The  period  of 
national  economy  was  marked  by  the  welding  together  of 
towns  and  principalities  into  powerful  modern  States.    To 
enhance  the  importance  of  the  nation,  taxes  on  internal  trade 
were  abolished  and  tariffs  were  imposed  on  imports  from 
other  countries.    Patriotism  was  encouraged  and  sectional- 
ism discouraged.    Thus  national  economy  supplanted  town 
economy. 

(d)  World  economy:   The  stage  has   now   passed   when 
there  is  an  advantage  in  maintaining  a  national  economy. 
The  railway,  steamship,  telegraph  and  ocean  cable  have 
brought  the  nations  of  the  world  nearer  together  than 
provinces  were  during  the  development  of  national  economy. 
Markets  have  become  world-wide.    No  country  is  entirely 
self-sufficient,  and  such  countries  as  England  are  so  dependent 
upon  other  nations  that  even  a  temporary  check  to  commerce 
involves  great  hardship,  as  when  the  American  Civil  War 
stopped  the  importation  of  raw  cotton  and  reduced  the 


98  ELEMENTS   OF  SOCIALISM 

Lancashire  operatives  to  abject  poverty.  Capital  knows  no 
national  lines.  It  is  essentially  international.  The  migration 
of  masses  of  laborers  from  one  country  to  another  in  response 
to  the  demands  of  industry,  the  spread  of  education  and 
increasing  ease  of  international  communication  have  resulted 
in  a  highly  developed  sense  of  international  solidarity  of 
class  interest.  National  lines  which  once  served  to  extend 
the  economic  unit  from  town  to  nation,  now  impede  further 
growth,  and  patriotism,  which  was  once  a  broadening  senti- 
ment tending  to  replace  excessive  loyalty  to  the  town  by  a 
larger  loyalty  to  the  nation,  has  in  its  turn  become,  in  its 
extreme  forms,  a  hindrance  to  further  development  and  a 
menace  to  the  peace  of  the  world. 


INDUSTRIAL  EVOLUTION  99 

SUMMARY 

1.  Economic  history  may  be  divided  into  stages  on  the  basis  of  the 
increasing  control  by  man  over  nature. 

2.  In  the  first  stage  men  live  by  hunting  and  fishing;  the  second  is 
characterized  by  the  domestication  of  animals  and  the  introduction 
of  slavery;  in  the  third  stage  agriculture  is  developed;  the  fourth  is 
characterized  by  handicraft  industry  and  the  fifth  stage  begins  with 
the  development  of  power  machinery  and  the  factory  system. 

3.  These  stages  have  differed  materially  in  different  parts  of  the 
world  and  their  form  has  been  modified  by  geographical  and  climatic 
conditions. 

4.  A  new  method  of  gaming  a  livelihood  does  not  usually  displace 
an  older  form,  but  subordinates  it,  thus  adding  to  the  complexity  of 
economic  life. 

5.  Economic  history  is  also  classified  on  the  basis  of  the  progressive 
enlargement  of  the  economic  unit  from  the  household  through  the  town 
and  nation  to  a  world  economy. 

QUESTIONS 

1.  What  are  the  characteristic  features  of  the  stage  of  direct  appro- 
priation?   Of  the  pastoral  stage?     Of  the  agricultural  stage? 

2.  Describe  the  manorial  system.     In  which  stage  does  it  belong? 

3.  Explain  the  organization  and  functions  of  the  craft  guild. 

4.  What  was  the  domestic  system  of  industry? 

5.  What  is  meant  by  the  "Industrial  Revolution"? 

6.  Name  the  chief  inventions  which  brought  about  the  industrial 
revolution. 

7.  Compare  the  industrial  stage  with  the  handicraft  stage. 

8.  Characterize  the   household   economy,   the  town  economy,  the 
national  economy. 

9.  What  facts  lead  us  to  expect  the  realization  of  a  world  economy? 


LlTERATTTKE 

Buecher,  C.,  Industrial  Evolution. 

Coman,  Katherine,  The  Industrial  History  of  the  United  States. 
Ely,  R.  T.,  Studies  in  the  Evolution  of  Industrial  Society. 
Hobson,  J.  A.,  The  Evolution  of  Modern  Capitalism. 
Morgan,  L.  EL,  Ancient  Society,  Part  I,  Chap.  II  and  III. 
Spencer,  Herbert,  Principles  of  Sociology,  Vol.  Ill,  Part  VIII. 
Toynbee,  A.,  The  Industrial  Revolution,  Chap.  IV. 


CHAPTER  XI 

THE   CLASS   STRUGGLE  THEORY 

The  theory  stated :  The  class  struggle  theory  is  a  part  of 
the  economic  interpretation  of  history.  Ever  since  the 
dissolution  of  primitive  tribal  society,  the  modes  of  economic 
production  and  exchange  have  inevitably  grouped  men  into 
economic  classes.  In  his  Introduction  to  the  Com- 
munist Manifesto  Frederick  Engels  thus  summarizes  the 
theory: 

"In  every  historical  epoch,  the  prevailing  mode  of  eco- 
nomic production  and  exchange,  and  the  social  organization 
necessarily  following  from  it,  form  the  basis  upon  which  is 
built  up,  and  from  which  alone  can  be  explained,  the  political 
and  intellectual  history  of  that  epoch;  and,  consequently 
the  whole  history  of  mankind  (since  the  dissolution  of  primi- 
tive society,  holding  land  in  common  ownership)  has  been  a 
history  of  class  struggles,  contests  between  exploiting  and 
exploited,  ruling  and  oppressed  classes;  that  the  history 
of  these  class  struggles  forms  a  series  of  evolution  in  which, 
nowadays,  a  stage  has  been  reached  where  the  exploited  and 
oppressed  class — the  proletariat — cannot  attain  its  emancipa- 
tion from  the  sway  of  the  exploiting  and  ruling  class — the 
bourgeoisie — without  at  the  same  time,  and  once  and  for  all, 
emancipating  society  at  large  from  all  exploitation,  oppres- 
sion, class  distinctions,  and  class  struggles." 

Analysis  of  the  statement:  In  this  statement  there  are 
several  important  propositions.  First,  that  class  divisions 
and  class  struggles  arise  out  of  the  economic  life  of  society. 
Second,  that  since  the  dissolution  of  primitive  society, 
which  was  based  upon  communism,  mankind  has  been 
divided  into  economic  classes,  and  that  all  its  history  has 
been  a  history  of  struggles  between  these  classes,  ruling 
and  ruled  forever  warring  against  each  other.  Third,  it  is 
implied  rather  than  stated  that  the  different  epochs  uTEuman 

100 


THE   CLASS   STRUGGLE   THEORY  101 

history  have  been  characterized  by  the  interests  of  the  ruling 
classes  of  these  epochs.  Fourth,  that  a  state  has  now  been 
reached  in  the  evolution  of  society  in  which  the  struggle 
assumes  the  form  of  a  contest  between  the  proletariat  and 
the  capitalist  class.  Fifth,  that  the  proletariat  by  eman- 
cipating itself  will  destroy  all  the  conditions  of  class  rule, 
and  in  doing  so  will  emancipate  all  society  from  the  evils 
attendant  upon  class  struggles. 

Opposition  to  the  theory:  No  other  phase  of  the  Socialist 
philosophy  has  attracted  so  much  criticism  as  this  doctrine 
of  the  essential  antagonism  of  social  classes.  The  criticism 
has  taken  two  distinct  forms— that  of  denying  tEe^existence 
of  social  classes,  and  that  of  accusing  the  Socialists  of 
fomenting  class  hatred. 

That  there  are  no  class  distinctions  in  America  has  been 
a  part  of  the  national  tradition.  The  absence  of  legalized 
caste  and  of  all  titles  of  nobility,  and  the  numerous  examples 
of  self-made  men — the  rail-splitter  who  became  President, 
and  the  millionaires  who  as  poor  boys  sold  newspapers  on 
the  streets — lend  support  to  the  tradition.  There  is  no 
formal  legal  barrier  separating  the  classes,  and  the  nouveau 
riche  is  still  a  familiar  type.  This  form  of  criticism  is  based 
upon  the  false  assumption  that  a  social  class  must  necessarily 
be  a  crystallized  social  group,  the  membership  of  which  is 
based  upon  inheritance.  But  though  we  have  no  hereditary, 
titular  ruling  class,  the  division  of  the  population  into  classes 
is  very  obvious. 

The  second  form  of  criticism  directed  against  the  theory 
tacitly  admits  the  existence  of  social  classes,  but  denies  that 
they  are  based  upon  antagonistic  interests  which  are  irrecon- 
cilable. It  asserts  that  the  major  interests  of  the  two  classes 
are  identical,  and  ascribes  all  industrial  conflicts  to  "unfor- 
tunate misunderstandings  between  capital  and  labor,"  or 
to  the  work  of  "dangerous  agitators."  It  accuses  the 
Socialists  of  inciting  the  workers  to  violent  assaults  upon  the 
industrial  order,  from  which  assaults  the  workers  themselves 
must  suffer  equally  with  their  employers. 

This  criticism,  it  may  be  admitted,  is  generally  honest 
and  sincere.  It  is  based  upon  an  entire  misconception  of  the 
whole  theory,  however.  It  assumes  that  the  Socialists  are 
engaged  in  creating  a  class  struggle,  instead  of  which  they 


102  ELEMENTS  OF  SOCIALISM 

are  simply  directing  attention  to  the  existence  of  a  class 
struggle  resulting  from  the  conditions  of  social  evolution. 
The  class  struggle  is,  from  the  Socialist  point  of  view,  simply 
a  law  of  social  development,  for  which  the  Socialist  is  as 
little  responsible  as  Newton  was  for  the  law  of  gravitation. 
There  were  class  struggles  thousands  of  years  before  there 
was  a  Socialist  movement. 

Definition  of  the  word  "class":  It  will  help  us  to  avoid 
much  confusion  and  misunderstanding  of  the  theory  if  we 
start  with  a  clear  conception  of  the  meaning  of  the  word 
"class."  What  is  an  economic  class?  In  order  that  we  may 
intelligently  discuss  any  theory  based  upon  the  existence 
of  economic  classes  we  must  first  of  all  be  able  to  answer 
that  question. 

In  the  first  place,  the  term  obviously  refers  to  a  grouping 
of  individuals  based  upon  economic  relation  and  status. 
It  does  not  refer  to  the  grouping  which  results  from  a  selective 
process  based  upon  the  choice  of  the  individuals  because 
they  are  congenial  to  each  other,  or  because  they  hold  certain 
ideas  in  common.  Such  a  grouping,  however  large  it  might 
be,  would  not  be  an  economic  class.  It  is  not  enough  to  say 
that  the  grouping  must  be  based  upon  economic  relation  and 
status,  however.  All  the  persons  connected  with  the  steel 
industry,  for  instance,  from  the  multi-millionaire  head  of  a 
corporation  to  the  poorest  paid  laborer,  might  be  regarded 
as  a  class,  because  of  that  economic  relation  and  status, 
that  is,  because  they  were  all  engaged  in  a  distinct  branch 
of  economic  activity,  regardless  of  the  fact  that  the  multi- 
millionaire on  top  and  the  laborer  at  the  bottom  might 
well  be  said  to  live  in  different  worlds. 

The  income  basis:  Many  writers  have  taken  income  as 
the  most  satisfactory  basis  for  the  classification  of  society 
into  economic  classes.  Mr.  W.  H.  Mallock,  for  example, 
in  his  Classes  and  Masses,  makes  relative  income  the  test 
of  class  membership,  and  arbitrarily  divides  English  society 
into  classes  accordingly.  By  this  method  a  skilled  artisan 
earning  two  pounds  a  week  and  a  feeble-minded  pensioner 
of  a  rich  relative  living  upon  two  pounds  a  week  are  regarded 
as  belonging  to  the  same  "class,"  despite  the  fact  that  the 
artisan  has  never  known  the  luxury  of  a  week's  rest,  and 
that  the  pensioner  has  never  done  a  day's  work.  The  income 


THE   CLASS   STRUGGLE   THEORY  103 

basis  results  simply  in  the  old,  crude  and  unscientific  division 
of  society  into  rich  and  poor. 

The  source  of  income  basis:  The  only  satisfactory  basis 
for  the  classification  of  society  is  that  of  similarity  of  eco- 
nomic functions  and  interests  in  the  prevailing  economic 
system.  In  other  words,  source  of  income,  rather  than 
amount  of  income,  is  the  test  of  class  membership.  In  every 
form  of  industrial  society  there  appears  a  social  class  forma- 
tion based  upon  the  source  of  income  or  mode  of  obtaining 
the  necessities  of  life  common  to  the  members  of  the  respec- 
tive classes.  Within  each  class  the  individuals  may  compete 
against  each  other,  each  striving  to  obtain  as  large  a  share 
as  possible  of  the  total  available  wealth,  but  the  unity  and 
solidarity  of  the  class  as  a  whole  is  invariably  shown  by  its 
resistance  to  any  attack  made  upon  its  material  interests 
by  any  other  class.  The  characteristic  features  of  an  eco- 
nomic class,  then,  are  that  its  members  are  united  by  their 
general  economic  interests,  and  that  as  a  whole  the  class 
opposes  every  attempt  of  any  other  class  to  invade  its 
interests. 

We  may  say?jtherefore,  that  an  economic  class  consists 
of  an  aggregate  of  persons  having  similar  specific  interests 
in  the  prevailing  economic  system,  and  whose  functions  in 
that  system  are  likewise  similar.  Thus  it  is  the  special 
interests  of  the  producers,  as  producers,  which  make  them 
a  class.  They  may  share  certain  important  general  interests 
with  all  the  rest  of  society,  but  their  particular  interests  as 
producers  they  hold  against  all  the  rest  of  society.  By 
similarity  of  functions  we  do  not  mean  identical  functions. 
Miners  and  bakers  are  engaged  in  very  different  occupations, 
but  they  perform  similar  functions  in  the  sense  that  they 
are  producers  of  wealth  and  not  mere  consumers.  As 
against  all  who  are  consumers  of  wealth  merely,  they  have  a 
common  class  interest. 

Antiquity  of  class  divisions  and  struggles :  Class  divisions 
have  existed  ever  since  slavery  began  in  the  epoch  of  barbar- 
ism. When^prisoners  of  war  began  to  be  exploited  rather 
than  killed,  society  became  for  the  first  time  divided  into 
definite  classes.  The  conflict  of  interests  between  master 
and  slave  is  obvious.  The  class  struggle  existed  even  though 
the  ignorance,  degradation  and  lack  of  opportunity  for  dis- 


104  ELEMENTS   OF   SOCIALISM 

cussion  which  limited  the  slaves  made  effective  resistance 
impossible.  Sporadic  revolts  were  always  crushed  with 
relentless  brutality. 

The  feudal  age  is  one  of  recognized  social  class  distinctions. 
The  conspicuous  divisions  were  between  lord  and  serf, 
whose  interests  were  as  obviously  antagonistic  as  those  of 
master  and  slave  in  the  preceding  regime.  Feudal  class 
distinctions  also  arose  through  conquest,  as,  for  example, 
the  subjugation  of  the  Britons  by  the  Saxons  and,  later,  by 
the  Normans.  As  we  have  seen,  the  freemen  who  settled 
in  the  towns  as  tradesmen  and  craftsmen  developed  by  the 
eleventh  century  a  powerful  middle  class,  closely  organized 
in  guilds  and  gaining  control  of  some  of  the  most  important 
sources  of  wealth.  The  interests  of  this  class  were  opposed 
to  those  of  the  feudal  nobility  just  as  were  the  interests  of 
the  serfs,  but  they  were  better  able  to  make  effective  resist- 
ance and  to  wage  war  upon  the  nobility.  By  the  beginning 
of  the  nineteenth  century  this  class  had  won  a  complete 
victory  and  itself  became  the  dominant,  ruling,  employing 
class. 

Character  of  classes  in  capitalist  society:  The  capitalist 
class  in  its  victory  brought  with  it  out  of  its  life  as  a  subject 
class  the  theories  of  political  democracy  and  laissez  faire. 
It  established  the  modern  State  in  such  a  form  that  no  legal 
guarantee  of  the  integrity  of  any  class  was  possible.  The 
rigidity  of  class  divisions  under  feudalism  was  broken  and 
passage  from  class  to  class  became  common.  But  the  de- 
velopment of  the  economic  has  accomplished  by  a  gradual 
and  almost  imperceptible  process  that  which  the  State 
could  not  do.  It  has  made  the  passage  from  the  lower  class 
to  the  class  above  increasingly  difficult,  and,  while  there 
is  no  guarantee  as  yet  of  the  absolute  integrity  of  the  master 
class,  practically  that  result  has,  to  a  very  large  degree, 
been  attained.  Transition  from  the  status  of  wage-worker 
to  that  of  capitalist,  which  was  common  and  relatively  easy 
in  the  earlier  stages  of  capitalism,  becomes  increasingly 
rarer  and  more  difficult  with  the  era  of  concentration  and 
the  immense  capitals  required  for  industrial  enterprise. 
Passage  from  the  lower  class  to  the  upper  tends  to  become 
almost  as  rare  as  the  transition  from  pauperism  to  princedom 
in  the  Old  World.  An  impecunious  coachman  may  marry  a 


THE   CLASS   STRUGGLE   THEORY  105 

princess,  and  so  enter  the  sacred  circles  of  royalty.  Such 
instances  are  little  rarer  than  marriages  between  common 
laborers  and  the  daughters  of  our  lords  of  industry  and 
finance.  Thus  class  lines  tend  to  become  permanently  fixed. 

The  principal  and  characteristic  class  division  of  capitalist 
society  is  that  which  separates  the  employing,  wage-paying 
class  from  the  employed,  wage-receiving  class.  It  is  clear 
that  where  it  is  to  the  interest  of  the  employer  to  produce 
as  cheaply  as  possible  and  sell  at  the  highest  rate  of  profit, 
his  interest  conflicts  with  that  of  the  wage-worker,  who 
wishes  to  get  the  highest  possible  wage  for  the  least  possible 
effort,  and  who  has  no  responsibility  for  the  conduct  of  the 
business  as  a  whole.  The  exceptionally  loyal  and  efficient 
man  may  become  a  foreman,  or  even  a  partner  in  the  business, 
but  if  all  employees  were  equally  loyal  and  efficient  they 
would  be  no  better  off,  as  a  group,  than  now.  If  they  turned 
out  a  greater  product,  their  wage  under  the  competitive 
wage  system  might  even  be  less.  As  employer  and  employee, 
then,  their  particular  interests  are  fundamentally  antag- 
onistic. 

The  Economists  on  class  divisions:  The  contention  is, 
then,  that  the  employer  as  such  and  the  employee  as  such 
have  opposing  interests  for  which  they  must  struggle  in  order 
to  maintain  or  improve  their  status,  and  that  in  consequence 
society  becomes  stratified  along  the  lines  of  these  class 
divisions.  These  facts  have  been  perceived  clearly  enough 
by  some  of  the  great  economists.  Thus,  Adam  Smith,  in 
his  Wealth  of  Nations,  states  the  matter  as  clearly  and  forcibly 
as  any  Socialist  of  the  present  day: 

"The  workmen  desire  to  get  as  much,  the  masters  to  give 
as  little,  as  possible.  The  former  are  disposed  to  combine 
in  order  to  raise,  the  latter  in  order  to  lower  the  wages  of 
labor.  .  .  .  Masters  are  always  and  everywhere  in  a  sort 
of  tacit,  but  constant  and  uniform  combination,  not  to  raise 
the  wages  of  labor  above  their  actual  rate.  To  violate  this 
combination  is  everywhere  a  most  unpopular  action,  and  a 
sort  of  reproach  to  a  master  among  his  neighbors  and  equals. 
.  .  .  Masters  too  sometimes  enter  into  particular  combina- 
tions to  sink  the  wages  of  labor.  .  .  .  These  are  always 
conducted  with  the  utmost  silence  and  secrecy  until  the 
moment  of  execution.  .  .  .  Such  combinations,  however,  are 


106  ELEMENTS   OF   SOCIALISM 

frequently  resisted  by  a  contrary  defensive  combination 
of  the  workmen;  who  sometimes  too,  without  any  provoca- 
tion of  this  kind,  combine  of  their  own  accord  to  raise  the 
price  of  labor.  .  .  .  They  are  desperate  and  act  with  the 
extravagance  and  folly  of  desperate,  men,  who  must  either 
starve  or  frighten  their  masters  into  an  immediate  compliance 
with  their  demands.  The  masters  upon  these  occasions 
are  just  as  clamorous  upon  the  other  side  and  never  cease 
to  call  aloud  for  the  assistance  of  the  civil  magistrate,  and 
the  rigorous  execution  of  those  laws  which  have  been  enacted 
with  so  much  severity  against  the  combinations  of  servants, 
laborers  and  journeymen."1 

The  basis  of  the  class  struggle,  and  the  fact  that  an 
improvement  in  well-being  intensifies  rather  than  checks 
class  strife,  are  clearly  suggested  by  the  following  passage 
from  John  Stuart  Mill: 

"Notwithstanding  the  effect  which  improved  intelligence 
in  the  working  classes,  together  with  just  laws,  may  have  in 
altering  the  distribution  of  the  produce  to  their  advantage, 
I  cannot  think  it  probable  that  they  will  be  permanently 
contented  with  the  condition  of  laboring  for  wages  as  their 
ultimate  state.  To  work  at  the  bidding  and  for  the  profit 
of  another,  without  any  interest  in  the  work — the  price  of 
their  labor  being  adjusted  by  hostile  competition,  one  side 
demanding  as  much  and  the  other  paying  as  little  as  possible 
— is  not,  even  when  wages  are  high,  a  satisfactory  state  to 
human  beings  of  educated  intelligence,  who  have  ceased  to 
think  themselves  naturally  inferior  to  those  whom  they 
serve.  They  may  be  willing  to  pass  through  the  class  of 
servants  on  their  way  to  that  of  employers;  but  not  to 
remain  in  it  all  their  lives."2 

Common  general  interests  of  the  classes:  Aside  from 
these  special  relations,  the  classes  have  many  things  in 
common.  As  in  the  case  of  the  lord  and  the  serf,  the  capital- 
ist and  the  laborer  may  belong  to  the  same  church  and 
have  religious  interests  in  common,  but  even  here,  more  than 
ever  before  since  the  founding  of  the  Christian  Church, 
religious  bodies  tend  to  give  the  same  recognition  to  class 

1  Adam  Smith,  Wealth  of  Nations,  Vol.  I,  Book  I,  chap.  viii. 

2  John  Stuart  Mill,  Principles  of  Political  Economy,  Book  IV,  chap, 
vii. 


THE   CLASS  STRUGGLE   THEORY  107 

lines  as  do  secular  organizations.  A  poorly  dressed  woman 
feels  as  much  out  of  place  in  an  aristocratic  church  as  she 
would  in  an  aristocratic  club.  The  classes  may  also  have 
common  racial  and  national  interests,  and  these  may  at 
times  even  counterbalance  their  economic  antagonism. 
They  may  even  have  a  common  industrial  interest  in  the 
development  of  an  industry  in  which  they  are  engaged,  and 
fear  equally  the  results  of  depression  hi  trade  or  of  hostile 
legislation. 

Individuals  versus  classes:  There  will  always  be  found 
in  every  class  individuals  who  either  do  not  recognize  their 
class  interests,  or  who  consciously  ignore  them.  To  the 
former  group  belong  those  workingmen  who,  unconscious  of 
their  class  interest,  take  the  side  of  their  employers  in 
industrial  disputes,  refuse  to  join  labor  organizations  and 
boast  of  their  loyalty  to  their  employers.  To  the  latter 
group  belong  those  who  subordinate  the  class  interest  which 
they  clearly  perceive  to  some  other  interest  which  they 
regard  as  being  more  important.  Among  such  interests 
may  be  mentioned  the  racial  and  religious  interests.  Thus 
we  find  workingmen  of  one  race  joining  together  to  exclude 
the  workingmen  of  another  race  from  employment  and  from 
social  and  political  recognition,  frequently  enabling  the 
capitalist  class  to  increase  its  powers  of  exploitation  through 
using  one  set  of  workers  to  fight  the  other.  Thus,  too,  in 
all  periods  of  social  transition  we  find  members  of  the  ruling 
class  making  common  cause  with  the  class  in  revolt. 

Marx  calls  attention  to  this  fact  hi  a  memorable  passage: 

"Finally,  in  times  when  the  class  struggle  nears  the 
decisive  hour,  the  process  of  dissolution  going  on  within  the 
ruling  class,  in  fact  within  the  whole  range  of  old  society, 
assumes  such  a  violent,  glaring  character  that  a  small 
section  of  the  ruling  class  cuts  itself  adrift,  and  joins  the 
revolutionary  class,  the  class  that  holds  the  future  in  its 
hands.  Just  as,  therefore,  at  an  earlier  period,  a  section 
of  the  nobility  went  over  to  the  bourgeoisie,  so  now  a  portion 
of  the  bourgeoisie  goes  over  to  the  proletariat,  and  in  par- 
ticular a  portion  of  the  bourgeois  ideologists,  who  have 
raised  themselves  to  the  level  of  comprehending  theoretically 
the  historical  movements  as  a  whole." 

It  is  very  evident  that  a  fair  statement  of  the  theory  as 


108  ELEMENTS   OF  SOCIALISM 

Marx  and  Engels  conceived  it  is  itself  a  sufficient  reply  to 
those  critics  of  the  theory  who  have  pointed  to  the  fact  that 
men  like  Robert  Owen,  Marx,  Engels,  Lassalle,  and  many 
others  who  have  played  an  important  part  in  the  history  of 
the  Socialist  movement  itself  have  come  from  the  ruling 
class.  Crude  statements  of  the  theory  by  ill-informed  ex- 
ponents may  offer  some  excuse  for  such  criticism,  but  it  is 
manifestly  foolish  and  unfair  to  judge  any  theory  by  the 
crudest  and  least  capable  presentation  of  it. 

Revisionist  criticism  of  the  theory:  While  the  dominant 
and  all-absorbing  conflict  in  present  society  is  that  which 
goes  on  between  the  wage-paying  and  wage-receiving 
classes,  these  two  groups  do  not  constitute  the  whole  of 
society.  This  is  especially  true  in  the  United  States  which 
is  still  very  largely  an  agricultural  nation.  We  must  con- 
sider the  rather  inchoate  and  ill-defined  interests  of  the  large 
so-called  middle  class,  consisting  of  farmers,  retail  traders, 
petty  manufacturers,  and  so  on.  Marx  and  Engels,  as 
noted  in  an  earlier  chapter,  regarded  the  imminent  dis- 
appearance of  this  class  as  certain  and  self-evident.  Assum- 
ing so  much,  they  could  ignore  its  existence  as  a  transitory 
incident  and  present  the  picture  of  a  conflict  in  which  the 
lines  are  automatically  fixed,  or  perhaps  a  better  expression 
would  be,  a  conflict  in  which  an  instinctive  alignment  of 
society  takes  place  upon  the  basis  of  ascertainable  and  con- 
flicting economic  interests. 

Bernstein  and  other  Socialists  of  the  Revisionist  school 
have  criticised  the  theory  in  this  particular,  and  pointed  to 
the  fact  that  the  middle  class  has  not  yet  disappeared,  but 
is  even  increasing  in  numerical  strength  through  the  increase 
in  the  number  of  small  stockholders.  Bernstein  suggests 
too,  that  the  workers  cannot  properly  be  regarded  as  a 
homogeneous  class.  Admitting  that  under  capitalism  the 
wage-workers  have  more  common  interests  than  conflicting 
ones,  and  in  that  sense  constitute  a  class,  he  holds  that  the 
abolition  of  capitalism  would  at  once  reveal  the  fact  that 
the  proletariat  consists  of  many  diverse  elements,  differing 
greatly  from  each  other,  and,  therefore,  bound  to  divide 
into  new  classes  instead  of  abolishing  all  classes  as  Marx 
and  Engels  predicted. 

Granting  that  Bernstein  is  right  in  criticising  the  assump- 


THE   CLASS  STRUGGLE   THEORY  109 

tion  in  the  Communist  Manifesto  that  the  workers  are  a 
homogeneous  mass,  equally  devoid  of  property,  family  and 
independence,  it  does  not  follow  that  we  must  accept  his 
view  that  the  differences  in  needs  and  interests  will  remain 
unmodified  after  "the  propertied  and  governing  classes  are 
removed  from,  or  deprived  of,  their  positions,"  and  become 
the  basis  of  a  new  arrangement  of  classes.  The  criticism  fails 
in  that  it  presupposes  a  sudden  transformation  from  capital- 
ist ownership  to  Socialist  ownership,  without  any  serious 
modification  of  the  position  and  constitution  of  the  pro- 
letariat. 

Relation  of  the  middle  class  to  the  proletarian  struggle: 
In  the  acute  phases  of  the  struggle  between  the  capitalist 
class  and  the  proletariat,  the  middle  class  occupies  a  very 
unenviable  position.  Many  of  its  members  are  struggling 
desperately  to  avoid  sinking  into  th6  proletarian  class,  while 
many  others  are  struggling  out  of  the  working  class  into  the 
ranks  of  the  class  above.  It  is  impossible  to  state  with 
exactitude  the  attitude  of  this  indefinite  class  toward  the 
proletarian  class  in  its  struggle  against  the  capitalist  class. 
In  general  it  may  be  said  that,  just  as  a  man  whose  income 
is  wholly  or  principally  derived  from  the  labor  of  others, 
through  the  ownership  of  the  means  of  production  and  ex- 
change, is  a  member  of  the  capitalist  class,  so  a  man  whose 
income  is  wholly  or  principally  derived  from  his  own  labor 
is  a  member  of  the  working  class.  In  general,  that  section 
of  the  middle  class  which  depends  wholly  or  in  principal 
part  upon  rent,  profit  and  interest  for  its  maintenance  will 
manifest  little  sympathy  with  the  producing  class  in  its 
struggles.  On  the  other  hand,  the  sympathies  of  that  section 
of  the  middle  class  which  depends  primarily  upon  its  own 
labor,  and  only  secondarily  upon  rent,  interest  and  profit, 
will,  in  general,  manifest  little  sympathy  with  the  capitalist 
class. 

The  middle  class  is  inclined  to  oppose  the  pretensions  of 
the  capitalist  class,  but  at  the  same  time  little  inclined  to 
sympathize  with  the  working  class.  It  fears  most  of  all 
the  interruption  of  business.  The  members  of  the  middle 
class  as  a  rule  would  prefer  to  have  all  class  conflicts  cease, 
but  care  very  little  how  a  settlement  is  effected.  It  is  from 
this  class  that  we  hear  most  about  the  "essential  identity 


110  -ELEMENTS   OF   SOCIALISM 

of  interest"  of  the  workers  and  their  employers.  The  mem- 
bers of  this  vague  class  suffer  both  from  high  prices  and  the 
increasing  power  of  the  workers  to  demand  high  wages. 
They  blame  the  "Trust"  for  all  their  major  ills,  and  the 
"agitators"  for  all  their  minor  ones.  Having  no  well  defined 
interests  as  a  class,  the  middle  class  pursues  no  consistent 
policy.  It  sees  in  the  manifestations  of  the  class  struggle 
little  more  than  personal  inconvenience,  and  does  not  rec- 
ognize its  far-reaching  significance.  But  with  the  growth 
of  the  great  monopolies,  which  exploit  the  petty  traders  and 
small  farmers  almost  as  much  as  they  exploit  the  wage- 
workers,  though  in  other  ways,  there  is  a  marked  tendency 
on  the  part  of  a  considerable  proportion  of  the  middle  class 
to  make  common  cause  with  the  worker  in  the  one  sphere 
where  such  unity  is  possible,  that  of  political  activity. 

Expansion  of  the  concept  of  class:  As  a  result  of  the 
criticisms  directed  against  the  class  struggle  theory  in  its 
narrowest  form,  and  the  experience  which  they  have  gained, 
the  Socialist  parties  of  the  world  manifest  an  increasing 
tendency  to  expand  the  meaning  of  the  term  "working 
class."  Wilhelm  Liebknecht,  the  astute  political  leader  of 
the  German  Social  Democracy,  in  a  paper  which  was  post- 
humously published,  wrote :  "A  tiny  minority  alone  demands 
that  the  Socialist  movement  shall  be  limited  to  the  wage-earn- 
ing class.  .  .  .  We  ought  not  to  ask 'Are  you  a  wage-earner?' 
but  'Are  you  a  Socialist?'  If  it  is  limited  to  the  wage-earners, 
Socialism  cannot  conquer.  If  it  includes  all  the  workers  and 
the  moral  and  intellectual  elite  of  the  nation,  its  victory 
is  certain."  Liebknecht  then  continues  to  argue  that  the 
Social  Democracy  is  "the  party  of  all  the  people  with  the 
exception  of  two  hundred  thousand  great  proprietors,  small 
proprietors,  and  priests." 

Class  consciousness:  The  recognition  of  the  existence  of 
social  classes,  and  of  the  interests  upon  which  they  are 
based,  is  what  the  Socialist  means  by  "class  consciousness." 
The  capitalist  who  accepts  the  system  as  it  is,  and  joins 
with  the  other  members  of  his  class  to  embrace  every  advan- 
tage which  presents  itself  is  class  conscious.  Likewise, 
the  worker  who  recognizes  that  in  the  long  run  his  interests 
are  those  of  his  class,  and  who  joins  with  his  fellows  to  obtain 
a  larger  share  of  the  product  of  their  labor,  is  class  conscious. 


THE   CLASS  STRUGGLE   THEORY  111 

The  Socialist  argues  that  the  whole  working  population 
must  be  aroused  to  a  recognition  of  their  class  interests. 
The  victory  of  the  capitalist  class  in  the  struggle  would 
mean  the  destruction  of  democracy  in  a  hopeless  capitalist 
despotism.  On  the  other  hand,  the  victory  of  the  working 
class  would  not  result  in  class  despotism,  the  substitution 
of  one  ruling  class  for  another,  as  all  previous  class  triumphs 
have  done,  but  in  the  abolition  of  the  conditions  without 
which  no  class  rule  can  exist,  namely,  class  ownership  and 
control  of  the  things  upon  which  society  as  a  whole  depends. 

Class  consciousness  does  not  mean  class  hatred:  Because 
they  seek  to  arouse  the  workers  to  a  consciousness  of  their 
class  interests,  the  Socialists  are  often  bitterly  condemned 
and  accused  of  seeking  to  stir  up  class  hatred.  This  is 
very  obviously  an  unjust  charge.  Whether  the  class  struggle 
theory  be  accepted  or  not,  it  is  essential  that  it  be  not  mis- 
represented. The  Socialists  do  not  create  the  class  struggle. 
If  we  admit  its  existence,  we  must  admit  that  it  has  its 
roots  in  economic  conditions  which  the  Socialists  have  not 
shaped,  but  which  have  developed  in  the  course  of  centuries 
of  evolution.  What  the  Socialist  does  is  to  call  attention 
to  the  class  struggle  and  to  the  antagonism  of  economic 
interests  which  creates  the  struggle.  By  awakening  the 
workers  to  a  recognition  of  the  class  struggle  and  the  forces 
which  determine  its  existence,  Socialism  tends  to  divert 
the  wrath  and  the  revolt  of  the  workers  from  individual 
employers  to  the  system  itself,  because  it  compels  them  to 
see  that  the  capitalist  class,  like  their  own,  is  a  product  of  . 
evolution,  and  that  the  individual  capitalist  is  no  more 
responsible  for  conditions  than  the  individual  wage-worker. 
By  discouraging  the  idea  of  independent  personal  attack, 
and  fostering  belief  in  association  upon  class  lines  for  the 
purpose  of  improving  conditions  by  economic  and  political 
activity,  Socialism  has  undoubtedly  done  much  to  make  the 
peaceful,  evolutionary  solution  of  the  labor  problem  possible 
through  political  channels.  It  must,  therefore,  be  regarded 
as  one  of  the  great  constructive  forces  of  modern  times. 

Organization  of  laborers  and  capitalists:  With  the  advent 
of  machine  production  and  the  development  of  the  factory 
system,  the  old  system  of  bargaining  between  masters  and 
wage-workers  assumed  a  new  form.  Under  the  domestic 


112  ELEMENTS   OF  SOCIALISM 

system  there  was  a  large  degree  of  competition,  both  among 
the  masters  and  among  the  wage-workers,  and  although 
the  masters  had  a  certain  advantage  of  position  the  journey- 
man was  still  able  to  obtain  a  relatively  large  share  of  the 
product.  The  individual  or  corporate  employer  of  hundreds 
of  working  people,  on  the  other  hand,  has  an  overwhelming 
advantage,  especially  where  little  skill  is  involved  and  when 
labor-saving  devices  are  being  continually  introduced.  The 
employer  can  fix  a  wage-scale  which  the  worker  must  accept 
or  leave.  There  is  no  bargain. 

If,  however,  all  or  a  large  part  of  the  available  labor  is 
organized,  so  that  a  strike  against  the  employer's  wage-scale 
will  effectually  close  the  factory,  the  workers  can  have  some 
bargaining  power.  Labor  unions  appeared  almost  as  early  as 
the  beginnings  of  capitalistic  concentration  and  have  been 
from  the  first  bitterly  opposed  by  the  employing  class.  Fail- 
ing to  crush  the  unions  by  legislation  directed  against  com- 
bination, the  employers  themselves  resorted  to  the  organiza- 
tion of  associations  for  the  protection  of  their  interests 
against  the  demands  of  the  labor  unions.  Thus  they  were 
able  to  do  away  with  a  great  deal  of  the  competition  in  their 
own  ranks  for  labor,  which  the  unions  had  taken  advantage 
of  in  their  efforts  to  increase  wages.  The  result  has  been 
the  intensification  of  the  class  struggle.  Highly  organized 
associations  of  employers  are  lined  up  in  opposition  to  the 
gigantic  federations  of  labor  unions,  and  the  conflict  becomes 
more  and  more  severe  from  year  to  year. 

Thus  we  have  a  regimentation  of  the  forces  of  industry 
in  which  industrial  initiative,  on  both  sides,  is  subordinated 
to  the  interests  of  the  class;  a  manning  of  forces  like  great 
armies  on  the  field  of  battle.  The  directive  and  admin- 
istrative genius  of  the  capitalist  class  must  not  only  manage 
industry  itself,  but  must  devote  a  large  part  of  its  attention 
to  the  organization  and  leadership  of  the  capitalist  forces 
in  the  class  war.  The  directive  and  administrative  genius 
of  the  working  class  must  in  like  manner  be  devoted  to  the 
organization  and  leadership  of  the  forces  of  that  class.  But 
unlike  the  leaders  of  the  capitalist  forces,  the  labor  leaders 
have  no  voice  in  the  direct  management  of  the  industrial 
processes,  and  are,  therefore,  at  a  big  disadvantage. 

The  weapons  of  class  warfare:  The  first  and  most  prim- 


THE  CLASS  STRUGGLE   THEORY  113 

itive  form  of  class  warfare  is  that  of  physical  violence.  It 
is  the  natural  expression  of  a  feeling  of  outraged  justice. 
The  only  method  of  struggle  open  to  the  slave  of  antiquity 
was  that  of  murderous  revolt.  Even  the  early  revolts  against 
the  capitalist  system  took  the  form  of  machine  smashing. 
Violence  is  always  met  by  violence,  and  the  greater  resources 
of  the  masters  in  every  age,  together  with  the  alienation  of 
public  sympathy  which  occurs  when  it  is  resorted  to,  make 
an  appeal  to  violence  a  verj'  dangerous  thing  for  the  working 
class.  The  recognition  of  this  fact  has  sometimes  led  em- 
ployers secretly  to  incite  violence  in  order  to  discredit  the 
workers  and  justify  repressive  measures. 

Organized  labor  is  able  to  use  the  strike  or  the  threat  of  a 
strike  as  a  means  of  enforcing  its  terms.  The  capitalist 
analogue  of  the  strike  is  the  lockout,  in  which  the  employer 
refuses  all  work  to  the  men  until  they  agree  to  his  terms. 
The  boycott  directed  against  the  products  of  a  particular 
establishment,  or  against  all  goods  made  by  non-union  labor, 
has  as  its  counterpart  the  blacklist  of  the  employer  directed 
against  the  workman  who  has  been  active  in  asserting  the 
interests  of  his  class.  The  blacklist  is  very  effective  in 
checking  the  activity  of  potential  union  leaders. 

The  capitalist  control  of  the  State  enables  the  employers 
to  call  to  their  assistance  the  police  and  the  militia,  and  even 
the  regular  army  of  the  United  States.  Still  more  important 
is  the  power  to  bring  about  class  legislation  and,  through  the 
judiciary,  class  interpretation  of  the  law.  The  power  of 
the  judiciary  over  legislation  has  been  developed  in  the 
United  States  to  a  greater  extent  than  in  any  other  country. 
The  Supreme  Court  may  annul  any  law  passed  by  Congress 
by  declaring  it  unconstitutional,  and  only  by  the  slow 
processes  of  death,  resignation  and  appointment  can  the 
court  be  reconstituted  and  such  an  opinion  reversed.  Im- 
peachment proceedings  are  only  possible  in  cases  of  personal 
misconduct,  and  even  then  are  too  cumbersome  for  practical 
use.  Not  only  can  the  Supreme  Court  nullify  legislation, 
but  it  can  directly  legislate  by  reading  into  a  law  a  signif- 
icance which  has  been  expressly  rejected  by  Congress.  These 
powers  were  never  specifically  given  to  the  court,  but  the 
customs  and  precedents  of  a  century  have  given  to  the 
exercise  of  the  powers  practically  all  the  authority  of  constitu- 


114  ELEMENTS  OF  SOCIALISM 

tional  sanction.  The  power  of  the  judiciary  is  used  with 
damaging  effect  upon  the  unions  by  means  of  the  issuance 
of  injunctions  in  labor  disputes.  Under  an  injunction 
directed  against  any  or  all  persons  involved  in  labor  troubles 
a  striker  or  union  official  can  be  arrested  and  imprisoned 
without  jury  trial. 

Political  organization  of  the  proletariat:  To  meet  and 
overcome  the  capitalist  use  of  the  agencies  of  the  State, 
the  forces  of  labor  in  every  industrial  nation  are  being  forced 
into  political  activity  upon  class  lines.  Class  conscious 
working  people  are  everywhere  organizing  into  Socialist  or 
Labor  parties  for  the  express  purpose  of  gaining  control  of 
the  machinery  of  the  State.  The  capture  of  the  State  by  the 
proletariat,  through  political  education  and  organization  of 
the  workers,  is  the  primary  aim  of  all  Socialist  parties. 
With  the  conquest  of  the  powers  of  the  State  by  the  pro- 
letariat class  ownership  of  the  means  of  production  and 
exchange  will  be  abolished.  Then,  for  the  first  time  in 
history,  will  true  democracy,  true  Socialism  and  true  indi- 
vidualism be  possible.  This  does  not  mean  that  there  will 
be  a  perfect  human  society  in  which  no  differences  will 
exist.  There  may  even  be  classes  in  a  certain  sense  of  the 
term,  but  not  the  present  horizontal  stratification  of  society. 
There  may  be  social  struggles,  struggles  between  races  and 
religions,  but  these  are  no  part  of  the  problem  of  Socialism, 
which  concerns  itself  only  with  the  next  step  in  social 
evolution. 


THE   CLASS   STRUGGLE    THEORY  115 


SUMMARY 

1.  History  has  been  largely  a  record  of  struggles  between  economic 
classes. 

2.  In  modern  society  the  class  struggle  assumes  the  form  of  a  con- 
flict between  the  capitalist  class  and  the  proletariat. 

3.  The  basis  of  the  class  divisions  is  a  difference  in  source  of  income 
and  not  in  the  amount  of  income. 

4.  Class  consciousness  is  the  recognition  of  the  existence  of  social 
classes  and  of  the  interests  on  which  they  are  based. 

5.  Both  great  economic  classes  organize  their  forces  and  both  use 
all  the  available  industrial  and  political  weapons  in  the  prosecution 
of  the  struggle. 

QUESTIONS 

1.  What  do  Socialists  mean  by  the  class  struggle? 

2.  What  are  the  principal  criticisms  of  the  theory  of  the  class  struggle, 
and  what  are  the  Socialist  answers  to  these  criticisms? 

3.  Why  cannot  the  amount  of  individual  wealth  be  taken  as  a  basis 
of  class  division? 

4.  What  is  meant  by  the  middle  class,  and  what  is  its  relation  to 
the  class  struggle? 

5.  Explain  what  is  meant  by  class  consciousness. 

6.  What  is  the  social  function  of  the  employers'  association? 

7.  What  is  the  place  of  the  trade  union  in  the  class  struggle? 

8.  What  is  the  purpose  of  the  blacklist?    The  boycott? 


LlTERATTJBE 

Ghent,  W.  J.,  Mass  and  Class. 

Kautsky,  K.,  The  Class  Struggle  (Das  Erfurter  Program.) 

London,  Jack,  The  War  of  the  Classes. 

Marx,  K  and  Engels,  F.,  The  Communist  Manifesto. 

Mitchell,  John,  Organized  Labor. 

Simons,  A.  M.,  Class  Struggles  in  America. 

Spargo,  John,  Socialism,  a  Summary  and  Interpretation  of  Socialist 
Principles,  Chap.  VI. 


CHAPTER  XII 

VALUE   AND   PRICE 

Introductory  remarks :  We  come  now  to  that  phase  of  our 
subject  which  is  the  most  difficult,  namely,  the  political 
economy  of  Socialism  in  general  and  the  much  disputed 
theories  of  value  and  surplus-value  in  particular.  Enough 
books  and  pamphlets  have  been  written  explaining,  attack- 
ing and  defending  these  pivotal  Marxian  doctrines  to  form 
a  large  library  by  themselves.  Contrary  to  the  old  adage 
that  "in  a  multitude  of  counsellors  there  is  wisdom,"  the 
student  is  more  than  likely  to  be  confused  by  the  multitude 
of  counsellors  represented  by  this  voluminous  literature. 

The  subject  is  necessarily  somewhat  abstract  and  difficult. 
To  master  it  requires  patience  and  perseverance  together  with 
at  least  ordinary  capacity  for  mental  perception.  If  the 
student  has  these,  the  most  elemental  requisites  of  sound 
scholarship,  he  will  find  that  the  difficulties  to  be  mastered 
are  only  great  enough  and  numerous  enough  to  stimulate 
his  intellectual  ambition  and  energy. 

Pitfalls  to  be  avoided:  The  way  of  the  student  will  be 
made  easier  if  certain  common  causes  of  confusion  are  fore- 
seen and  avoided.  One  of  the  most  common  of  these  causes 
of  confusion  lies  in  the  fact  that  many  students  and  critics 
of  Marx  enter  upon  the  study  of  his  theories  with  precon- 
ceived mental  concepts  more  or  less  clearly  defined,  but  alto- 
gether erroneous,  of  which  they  do  not  divest  themselves. 
With  this  bias  as  a  foundation  they  are  practically  unable  to 
get  a  mental  picture  of  Marx's  theories  which  is  not  more  or 
less  distorted  by  their  preconceived  errors.  For  example, 
the  student  who  has  read  a  little  political  economy  and 
something  less  of  Socialism  has  heard  or  read  the  claim  made 
by  some  critics  of  Marx,  such  as  Mr.  W.  H.  Mallock,  that 
the  central  idea  in  Socialist  economics  is  that  all  wealth  is 
the  product  of  ordinary  manual  labor,  and,  therefore,  ought 

116 


VALUE  AND   PRICE  117 

in  justice  to  belong  to  the  laborers.  Later  on  he  encounters 
the  formula  in  which  Marx  states  his  proposition  that  the 
value  of  commodities  is  determined  by  the  amount  of  socially 
necessary  human  labor  power  which  they  represent.  If  his 
mind  were  not  already  warped  and  biased,  he  would  investi- 
gate the  theory  of  which  the  statement  quoted  is  the  formula, 
instead  of  which  he  is  very  apt  to  regard  it  as  a  confirmation 
of  the  altogether  absurd  statement  of  Marx's  theory  made 
by  his  critics.  To  avoid  this  pitfall  which  has  trapped  so 
many  unwary  feet,  it  is  necessary  that  the  student  should 
divest  his  mind  of  all  preconceptions  of  the  subject  and  begin 
his  study  of  Marx  with  an  open  mind,  as  though  he  had  never 
before  heard  of  Marx,  of  wealth,  of  value  or  of  labor.  That 
is  the  only  attitude  compatible  with  sound  scholarship. 

Another  prolific  source  of  error  to  be  avoided  is  the  unschol- 
arly  habit  of  beginning  a  study  in  the  middle,  or  anywhere 
else  than  at  the  beginning.  This  habit  is  one  which  is  at  all 
times  to  be  avoided,  but  in  the  case  of  a  thinker  like  Marx 
it  is  especially  dangerous.  For  Marx  moves  with  precise 
method  in  his  reasoning,  step  by  step.  If  we  do  not  begin 
with  him  at  the  beginning  and  follow  him  closely  we  cannot 
hope  to  escape  confusion  and  difficulty.  We  may  think 
that  we  know  perfectly  the  meaning  of  such  terms  as 
"wealth,"  "capital,"  "labor"  and  "value,"  and  that  we  need 
not  stop  to  consider  his  definitions.  If  that  is  our  attitude 
we  are  doomed  to  inevitable  confusion.  We  think  of  capital, 
for  example,  as  consisting  of  things — <rwealth  used  for  the 
production  of  new  wealth" — but  when  Marx  uses  the  word 
he  is  not  referring  to  things  at  all.  He  is  referring  to  some- 
thing very  different,  namely,  an  abstract  quality,  a  social 
relation  between  persons  expressed  through  the  medium  of 
things.  We  shall  have  occasion  to  refer  to  this  particular 
term  at  greater  length  hereafter;  it  is  sufficient  here  and  now 
to  cite  the  one  example  of  the  confusion  which  must  arise 
if  we  begin  our  study  anywhere  else  than  at  the  beginning. 

We  must  close  this  admonitory  introduction  with  one 
other  warning.  The  student  must  not  attempt  to  divide  the 
synthesis  of  Marxian  theory  and  regard  its  parts  separately. 
He  must  not  attempt  to  study  the  theory  of  value  as  a 
thing  apart  from,  and  having  no  necessary  connection  with, 
the  economic  interpretation  of  history.  If  he  does  he  will 


118  ELEMENTS   OF  SOCIALISM 

not  only  miss  the  most  significant  contribution  of  Marx  to 
modern  thought,  but  he  will  inevitably  be  forced  to  disregard 
the  boundaries  of  the  theory  of  value,  if  we  may  use  the 
term.  In  other  words,  where  Marx  says  that  under  such  and 
such  conditions,  and  only  then,  certain  consequences  result 
from  certain  causes,  the  student  who  does  not  observe  the 
qualification  in  the  statement,  will  find  many  instances 
where  such  consequences  do  not  result  from  such  causes. 
He  will  therefore  decide  that  Marx  was  mistaken,  instead 
of  which  he  mistakes  Marx.  Where  Marx  said  that  under 
certain  definite  conditions  A  would  cause  Z,  the  student 
has  supposed  that  A  must  cause  Z  under  any  conditions. 

I 

Marx's  sociological  viewpoint:  Political  economy,  or 
economics,  may  be  defined  as  the  science  which  investigates 
and  explains  the  nature  and  source  of  wealth,  and  seeks  to 
discover  the  laws  which  govern  its  production,  distribution 
and  exchange.  In  its  broadest  sense  it  also  has  to  do  with 
the  regulation  of  man's  social  activities  in  so  far  as  they  affect 
the  production,  distribution  and  exchange  of  wealth.  The 
science  of  economics,  as  such,  is  not  limited  to  the  investiga- 
tion and  explanation  of  the  phenomena  of  which  it  treats 
under  any  specified  conditions.  That  is  to  say,  it  may  very 
properly  deal  with  the  subject  of  wealth  in  all  its  aspects 
at  any  period  of  history,  or  in  any  place. 

By  the  opening  sentence  of  his  great  work,  Capital,  Marx 
makes  it  perfectly  clear  that  he  deliberately  limits  himself 
to  the  subject  of  wealth  production  and  exchange  under  cer- 
tain sharply  defined  conditions,  which  limitations  we  must 
observe  in  order  to  understand  him.  Calling  his  work  an 
analysis  of  capitalist  production,  he  says  in  the  first  para- 
graph: "The  wealth  of  those  societies  in  which  the  capitalist 
mode  of  production  prevails  presents  itself  as  an  immense 
accumulation  of  commodities,  its  unit  being  a  single  com- 
modity. Our  investigation  must  therefore  begin  with  a 
single  commodity." 

The  significance  of  this  opening  paragraph  for  us,  at 
present,  lies  in  the  fact  that  it  makes  perfectly  plain  the 
sociological  viewpoint  of  Marx,  and  the  close  interrelation 


VALUE   AND    PRICE  119 

of  his  theory  of  social  evolution  and  his  economic  theories. 
It  is  only  in  societies  in  which  the  capitalist  mode  of  pro- 
duction prevails  that  wealth  assumes  the  form  of  massed 
commodities.  In  other  stages  of  social  development  wealth 
assumes  other  forms,  but  in  these  we  are  not  interested, 
our  purpose  being  simply  to  analyze  the  capitalist  mode  of 
production.  It  is  obvious,  therefore,  that  our  first  step  must 
be  to  understand  the  nature  of  the  unit  of  wealth,  the  single 
commodity.  The  familiar  illustrations  drawn  from  the  life 
of  Robinson  Crusoe  on  his  island,  and  of  the  "economic 
man,"  will  not  assist  us,  for  neither  has  any  place  in  a  society 
characterized  by  the  capitalist  mode  of  production.  Thus 
at  the  very  outset  we  are  compelled  by  the  inexorable  logic 
of  Marx's  method  to  recognize  the  unitary  character  of  his 
theoretical  system.  It  is  one  whole.  His  economic  theory  is 
simply  the  application  of  his  general  theory  of  historical 
development  to  a  particular  epoch,  the  epoch  of  capitalism. 

Definition  of  commodity:  Within  the  capitalist  stage  of 
sowal  development,  then,  the  unit  of  wealth  is  a  commodity. 
It  follows,  therefore,  that  the  production  of  wealth  must 
take  the  form  of  the  production  of  commodities.  But  what 
is  a  commodity?  Marx  answers  in  a  very  lucid  manner: 
a  commodity  must  first  of  all  be  a  material  object  which  by 
its  properties  satisfies  human  wants  of  some  sort  or  another. 
It  makes  no  difference  what  the  nature  of  such  wants  may  be, 
or  how  they  are  satisfied.  Whether  the  object  satisfies  a 
fundamental  physical  need,  as  food  does,  or  merely  gratifies 
our  fancy  and  gives  us  pleasure,  as  a  toy  gratifies  the  fancy 
of  a  child,  is  unimportant.  Whether  it  serves  directly  as  a 
means  of  subsistence  or  indirectly  as  a  means  of  production 
matters  not.  The  essential  point  is  that  a  commodity  must 
possess  utility,  it  must  be  useful  in  the  broad  sense  that  it 
possesses  the  quality  of  satisfying  some  human  need  or 
desire.  This  property  of  an  object  is  called  its  use-value. 

But  a  thing  which  possesses  use-value  is  not  of  necessity 
a  commodity.  Not  all  objects  which  possess  utility  can  be 
called  commodities.  Air  and  light,  for  example,  have  un- 
bounded utility  and  are  absolutely  indispensable  to  life,  but 
they  are  not  commodities.  To  call  sunlight  a  commodity, 
as  Professor  Nicholson  does,1  is  to  destroy  the  value  of  the 

1  J.  S.  Nicholson,  Elements  of  Political  Economy,  p.  24. 


120  ELEMENTS   OF  SOCIALISM 

term  for  intelligent  discussion.  Air  and  sunshine  are  not 
commodities,  but  what  the  economists  call  "free  goods." 
Even  the  thing  which  I  make  for  my  own  use,  which  per- 
fectly satisfies  some  need  of  mine,  and  has  very  great  use- 
value,  is  not  necessarily  a  commodity.  The  question  arises, 
then,  what  other  quality  than  use-value  must  a  thing 
possess  to  be  a  commodity?  Marx  answers  that,  in  addition 
to  being  a  utility,  it  must  also  possess  the  quality  of  being 
exchangeable — it  must  have  exchange-value.  A  commodity, 
then,  is  an  object  which  has  two  fundamental  qualities, 
namely,  the  quality  of  being  useful  and  the  quality  of  being 
exchangeable  for  other  objects. 

Exchange-value:  When  we  say  that  an  object  has  ex- 
change-value we  mean  that  it  is  salable,  exchangeable  for 
other  things.  But  exchange  and  sale  are  terms  which  refer 
to  human  actions,  social  relations  between  two  or  more  per- 
sons, and  not  to  any  physical  properties  of  the  things  sold 
or  exchanged.  The  use-value  of  a  thing,  as  we  have  seen, 
is  a  quality  that  is  inherent  in  the  object  itself.  The  thing 
I  make  for  the  satisfaction  of  my  own  needs  possesses  the 
inherent  quality  of  use-value,  but  if  I  try  to  sell  it  or  to 
exchange  it  for  something  else  which  I  desire,  I  find  that  no 
one  will  buy  it,  or  take  it  in  return  for  what  I  want.  No 
one  desires  it.  Here  we  have  the  index  to  the  solution  of 
our  problem:  exchange-value  is  a  social  concept.  It  is 
based  upon  desirability.  In  order  to  have  exchange-value, 
a  thing  must  have  the  quality  of  being  useful  to  and  desired 
by  others  than  its  owner.  When  a  thing  is  desired  by  others 
we  say  that  it  has  social  utility,  the  quality  of  being  useful  to 
others. 

An  object  becomes  a  commodity,  then,  only  when  it  has 
two  qualities:  (1)  It  must  have  utility — be  capable  of 
satisfying  some  want  or  desire  on  the  part  of  its  owner;  (2) 
It  must  have  social  utility — be  capable  of  satisfying  some 
want  or  desire  on  the  part  of  some  person  other  than  its 
owner. 

Exchange  of  commodities:  In  primitive  society  the  pro- 
duction of  wealth  was  carried  on  by  individuals  for  their 
own  use.  But  in  modern  society,  industrial  society,  produc- 
tion is  carried  on  by  social  groups  principally  for  exchange. 
That  is  to  say,  the  persons  employed  in  a  factory  are  not 


VALUE  AND   PRICE  121 

engaged  in  making  things  which  they  themselves,  or  their 
employer,  desire  and  expect  to  use,  but  things  which  other 
people  are  assumed  to  desire  for  their  use  and  to  be  willing 
to  buy.  So  the  economic  life  of  capitalist  society  is  concerned 
with  the  production  of  commodities  and  their  exchange  at  a 
profit.  That  is  what  the  Socialist  means  when  he  declares 
that  under  capitalism  production  is  carried  on  for  profit 
and  not  for  use. 

This  exchange  of  commodities  is  not  carried  on  through 
barter.  The  maker  of  one  commodity,  say  shoes,  does 
not  go  to  the  maker  of  another  commodity,  say  bread, 
and  barter  shoes  for  bread.  Production  and  exchange  are 
conducted  upon  too  vast  a  scale  for  that.  The  exchange  is 
carried  on  through  the  medium  of  one  important  commodity, 
money.  To  say  that  a  pair  of  shoes  will  sell  for  so  much 
money  and  that  the  money  will  in  turn  buy  twenty-five 
loaves  of  bread  is  to  say  that  one  pair  of  shoes  will  exchange 
for  twenty-five  loaves  of  bread,  or,  in  other  words,  that  the 
exchange-values  of  twenty-five  loaves  of  bread  and  one  pair 
of  shoes  are  equal. 

Determination  of  relative  exchange-values:  Now,  the 
question  arises,  what  is  it  that  determines  the  relative  ex- 
change-values of  commodities?  Let  us  suppose  that  pink 
parasols  and  wheel-barrows  are  selected  from  among  the 
multitude  of  commodities  because  they  happen  to  be  approx- 
imately equal  exchange-values  and,  at  the  same  time,  very 
much  unlike  each  other.  How  shall  we  account  for  the  fact 
that  two  commodities  so  dissimilar  in  appearance,  and  whose 
functions  are  so  different,  come  to  be  exchanged  upon  an 
equality  in  the  market?  To  be  able  to  answer  that  question 
is  to  understand  the  principal  economic  mechanism  of 
capitalist  society,  and  that  is  our  only  objective. 

At  first  thought  our  analysis  of  a  commodity  seems  to 
offer  a  ready  solution  to  the  problem.  If  a  thing  may  be 
a  use-value  and  yet  be  valueless  in  an  economic  sense,  and 
if  in  order  to  have  any  exchange-value  at  all  it  must  be  a 
social  use-value,  then  it  is  natural  to  suppose  that  relative 
degrees  of  social  utility  determine  relative  values.  The 
familiar  "marginal  utility,"  "final  utility"  and  "supply 
and  demand"  theories  of  value  are  all  based  upon  this 
fundamental  assumption.  As  we  shall  have  to  discuss  these 


122  ELEMENTS   OF   SOCIALISM 

theories  later  on,  we  need  not  pause  to  consider  them  here, 
except  to  say  that  the  Marxian  theory  of  value  does  not 
involve  the  assumption  that  relative  social  utility  has  no 
influence  upon  exchange-value.  But,  whatever  influence 
relative  social  utility  may  have  upon  the  exchange-value  of 
individual  commodities  of  the  same  kind,  as  silk  hats,  for 
example,  it  is  obviously  not  an  explanation  of  the  relative 
values  of  different  kinds  of  commodities  when  exchanged 
against  each  other.  The  relative  social  utility  of  the  wheel- 
barrow may  differ  from  the  relative  social  utility  of  the 
parasol  quite  as  much  as  the  two  commodities  differ  in 
physical  appearance  and  in  function.  We  may  introduce  a 
third  commodity,  differing  equally  from  both  the  others, 
alike  in  general  characteristics  and  in  relative  social  utility 
— a  pair  of  spectacles,  for  instance — and  find  that  it  exchanges 
for  either  of  the  others  upon  a  basis  of  equality. 

Views  of  the  pre-Marxian  economists :  If  at  this  stage  we 
pause  to  analyze  any  number  of  commodities,  we  shall  find 
that  when  we  have  carefully  observed  and  noted  all  their 
differences  they  have  at  least  one  quality  in  common.  They 
may  differ  in  size,  shape,  weight,  color,  texture,  function, 
simple  utility,  social  utility,  in  short,  in  every  respect  except 
one — they  are  all  products  of  human  labor,  or,  as  Marx 
would  say,  crystallizations  of  human  labor-power.  It  is 
an  axiom  of  political  economy  that  all  wealth  is  the  result 
of  an  application  of  human  energies  to  natural  resources, 
and  every  unit  of  wealth  is,  therefore,  an  embodiment  of 
labor-power.  Here,  then,  say  the  Socialists,  we  have  at 
least  a  hint  of  the  solution  of  the  great  problem  which  lies 
at  the  heart  of  the  system  of  exchange  in  capitalist  society. 
The  amount  of  labor-power  represented  by  these  various 
commodities  is  in  some  manner  connected  with  their  relative 
values.  So  far,  no  modern  economist  will  disagree.  That 
there  is  some  relation  between  the  labor  spent  in  producing 
economic  goods  and  their  value  is  universally  admitted. 

Most  of  the  great  economists  before  Marx  held  the  view 
that  the  relative  value  of  commodities  to  one  another  is 
determined  by  the  relative  amounts  of  human  labor-power 
consumed  in  their  production.  With  slight  variations,  this 
theory  was  held  by  nearly  all  the  great  economists  from  Sir 
William  Petty  in  the  seventeenth  century  to  John  Stuart  Mill 


VALUE   AND   PRICE  123 

in  the  latter  half  of  the  nineteenth  century.  A  few  citations 
upon  this  point  must  suffice: 

Petty's  view:  Sir  William  Petty  takes  silver  and  corn  for 
comparison : 

"If  a  man  can  bring  to  London  an  ounce  of  silver  out  of 
the  earth  in  Peru  in  the  same  time  that  he  can  produce  a 
bushel  of  corn,  then  one  is  the  natural  price  of  the  other; 
now,  if  by  reason  of  new  and  more  easy  mines  a  man  can 
get  two  ounces  of  silver  as  easily  as  formerly  he  did  one, 
then  the  corn  will  be  as  cheap  at  ten  shillings  a  bushel  as 
it  was  before  at  five  shillings  a  bushel,  cceteris  paribus" l 

Adam  Smith's  view:  Adam  Smith,  in  his  Wealth  of 
Nations,  takes  the  same  view: 

"The  real  price  of  everything,  what  everything  really  costs 
to  the  man  who  wants  to  acquire  it,  is  the  toil  and  trouble 
of  acquiring  it.  What  everything  is  really  worth  to  the  man 
who  has  acquired  it,  and  who  wants  to  dispose  of  it  or 
exchange  it  for  something  else,  is  the  toil  and  labor  which  it 
can  save  to  himself,  and  which  it  can  impose  on  other  people. 
.  .  .  Labor  was  the  first  price,  the  original  purchase  money, 
that  was  paid  for  all  things.  ...  If  among  a  nation  of 
hunters,  for  example,  it  usually  costs  twice  the  labor  to 
kill  a  beaver  which  it  does  to  kill  a  deer,  one  beaver  would 
naturally  be  worth  or  exchange  for  two  deer.  It  is  natural 
that  what  is  usually  the  produce  of  two  days'  or  two  hours' 
labor,  should  be  worth  double  of  what  is  usually  the  produce 
of  one  day's  or  one  hour's  labor."2 

Ricardo's  view:  "To  convince  ourselves  that  this  (quan- 
tity of  labor)  is  the  real  foundation  of  exchangeable  value, 
let  us  suppose  any  improvement  to  be  made  in  the  means 
of  abridging  labor  in  any  one  of  the  various  processes  through 
which  the  raw  cotton  must  pass  before  the  manufactured 
stockings  come  to  the  market  to  be  exchanged  for  other 
things;  and  observe  the  effects  which  will  follow.  If  fewer 
men  were  required  to  cultivate  the  raw  cotton,  or  if  fewer 
sailors  were  employed  in  navigating,  or  shipwrights  in  con- 
structing the  ship  in  which  it  was  conveyed  to  us;  if  fewer 
hands  were  employed  in  raising  the  buildings  and  machinery, 

1  William  Petty,  A  Treatise  on  Taxes  and  Constitutions  (1662),  pp. 
31-32. 
z  Adam  Smith,  The  Wealth  of  Nations,  Vol.  I,-  chaps,  v-vi. 


124  ELEMENTS   OF  SOCIALISM 

or  if  these,  when  raised,  were  rendered  more  efficient;  the 
stockings  would  inevitably  fall  in  value,  and  command  less 
of  other  things.  They  would  fall  because  a  less  quantity 
of  labor  was  necessary  to  their  production,  and  would  there- 
fore exchange  for  a  smaller  quantity  of  those  things  in  which 
no  such  abridgment  of  labor  had  been  made."  * 

John  Stuart  Mill's  view:  John  Stuart  Mill  is  less  definite 
than  Ricardo,  but  he  says  that  "Every  commodity  of  which 
the  supply  can  be  indefinitely  increased  by  labor  and  capital, 
exchanges  for  other  things  proportionately  to  the  cost  neces- 
sary for  producing  and  bringing  to  the  market  the  most 
costly  portion  of  the  supply  required."2  Elsewhere  he  says 
that  of  the  component  elements  of  cost  of  production,  "the 
principal  of  them,  and  so  much  the  principal  as  to  be  nearly 
the  sole,  we  found  to  be  labor."3 

Meaning  of  the  labor  theory  of  value :  It  would  be  exceed- 
ingly disingenous  to  suggest  that  all  these  great  economists4 
regarded  all  labor  as  being  of  equal  value,  and  considered  the 
labor  of  an  unskilled  laborer  to  be  equally  as  valuable,  hour 
for  hour,  as  that  of  a  highly  skilled  artisan.  It  would  be 
equally  disingenuous  to  suggest  that  in  the  term  "labor" 
they  included  nothing  but  ordinary  manual  labor,  or  that 
they  held  the  labor  value  theory  in  the  absolute  sense  as 
meaning  that  if  a  good  workman  made  two  coats  in  the  same 
time  as  it  took  a  poor  workman  to  make  one  coat,  the  two 
coats  would  only  equal  the  one  in  value.  While  it  is  not 
always  made  as  clear  as  it  might  be,  it  is  evident  that  in 

1  David   Ricardo,   Principles  of  Political  Economy  and   Taxation, 
chap,  i,  §  iii. 

2  J.  S.  Mill,  Principles  of  Political  Economy,  Book  II,  chap.  vi. 

3  Idem,  Book  III,  chap.  iv. 

4  To  the  list  of  authors  quoted  might  well  be  added  the  names  of 
Benjamin  Franklin  and  Henry  Charles  Carey,  two  of  the  most  original 
of  our  early  American  economists.     Franklin  regarded  trade  as  being 
"nothing  but  the  exchange  of  labor  for  labor,  the  value  of  all  things 
being  most  justly  measured  by  labor."     (Remarks  and  Facts  Relative 
to  the  American   Paper   Money   [1764],   p.   267.)     Carey   went   even 
further,  and  contended  that  the  value  of  all  commodities,  and  even 
of  land,  is  determined  by  the  labor  necessary,  under  present  conditions, 
to  reproduce  the  commodity,  or,  in  the  case  of  land,  the  labor  necessary 
to  bring  new  land  to  the  same  stage  of  productiveness.     See  his  Prin- 
ciples of  Political  Economy  (1838-1840).     Carey  is  in  many  respects 
worthy  of  much  more  consideration  than  he  has  ever  received  at  the 
hands  of  his  own  countrymen. 


VALUE   AND   PRICE  125 

saying  that  the  value  of  commodities  is  determined  by  the 
labor  spent  in  their  production  they  were  referring  to  an 
average  process,  a  general  rule,  not  to  its  manifestation  in 
particular  individual  commodities.  It  is  also  evident  that 
they  were  referring  to  average  labor,  that  is,  labor  of  average 
skill  and  productivity.  Finally,  it  is  evident  that,  with  rare 
exceptions,  the  economists  who  accepted  the  theory  that  the 
basis  of  the  value  of  commodities  is  the  labor  crystallized 
in  them  meant  social  labor,  rather  than  the  labor  of  particular 
individuals  or  sets  of  individuals.  Thus,  when  Ricardo,  in 
the  passage  already  quoted,  refers  to  quantity  of  labor, 
he  includes  not  merely  the  labor  of  those  immediately  con- 
cerned in  making  stockings,  but  all  the  indirect  labor,  even 
to  the  building  of  the  ships  in  which  the  raw  cotton  is 
transported. 

Marx  and  the  labor  theory  of  value :  Marx  further  devel- 
oped the  concept  of  social  labor  as  the  basis  and  measure  of 
value.  He  saw  that  machine  production  had  made  it 
impossible  to  measure  exactly  the  labor  spent  in  the  produc- 
tion of  any  single  commodity.  He  recognized  the  futility 
of  making  any  attempt  to  do  anything  of  the  kind.  If  we 
take  even  a  very  simple  article  made  by  hand  labor,  it  is 
practically  impossible  to  determine  the  amount  of  social 
labor  it  embodies.  Let  us  consider  an  ordinary  table:  even 
if  we  could  measure  the  individual  labor  spent  in  felling  the 
tree  and  sawing  it  into  the  boards  of  which  the  table  was 
made,  and  the  labor  of  the  man  who  made  the  table  itself, 
we  could  not  measure  the  share  of  the  social  labor  expended 
in  making  the  tools  used,  the  labor  of  the  tool-makers  and, 
before  them,  the  coal  and  iron  miners.  We  could  not  measure 
what  share  of  the  total  volume  of  labor  spent  in  constructing 
the  railroads  over  which  the  lumber  was  hauled  is  repre- 
sented in  the  table.  When  we  pass  from  such  simple  hand 
labor  to  the  complex  machine  production  of  modern  indus- 
try, it  at  once  becomes  apparent  that  no  human  intellect 
could  ever  calculate  the  amount  of  social  labor  contained 
in  any  given  commodity,  and  that  in  the  actual  process  of 
exchanging  commodities  in  every-day  life  there  can  be  no 
calculation  of  the  relative  labor  content  of  individual  com- 
modities by  individual  purchasers  and  vendors.  When  we 
go  into  the  market  to  buy  goods  we  do  not  make  a  mental 


126  ELEMENTS   OF   SOCIALISM 

calculation  and  as  a  result  refuse  to  pay  as  much  for  one 
article  as  for  another  upon  the  ground  that  it  required  less 
social  labor  to  produce  it,  and  that  it  is  therefore  of  less  value. 
If  the  value  of  commodities  is  determined  by  the  social  labor 
expended  in  their  production,  the  law  must  be  a  general  one, 
applying  to  the  system  of  production  and  exchange  as  a 
whole,  rather  than  to  individual  commodities,  and  it  must 
operate  automatically,  as  it  were. 

This  is,  in  fact,  exactly  what  Marx  claims.  Setting  out  to 
discover  the  general  law  of  value  in  capitalist  society,  the 
principle  which  determines  the  value  of  masses  of  products 
against  other  masses  of  products,  and  of  dissimilar  products 
against  each  other,  rather  than  the  value  of  unit  commodities 
against  other  units  of  the  same  kind,  he  concludes  that  the 
value  of  commodities,  as  a  rule,  is  determined  by  the  amount 
of  socially  necessary  human  labor  power  represented  by 
them.  In  other  words,  the  value  of  commodities  is  deter- 
mined by  the  amount  of  social  labor  necessary,  on  an  average, 
under  the  conditions  existing  at  a  given  time  and  place, 
to  reproduce  them.  This  is  not  determined  absolutely, 
in  individual  cases,  but  approximately  in  general,  by  the 
bargaining  and  higgling  of  the  market,  to  adopt  a  phrase 
used  by  Adam  Smith. 

II 

Misdirected  criticisms  of  the  theory:  With  the  theory 
thus  delimited,  we  are  in  a  position  to  consider  some  of  the 
criticisms  of  it  which  have  been  made  by  non-Socialist 
economists. 

(a)  As  to  "unique  values":  One  of  the  most  common 
criticisms  of  the  Marxian  theory  of  value  assumes  its  applica- 
tion to  every  article  of  value,  and  ignores  the  fact  that,  as 
we  have  seen,  Marx  specifically  limits  its  application  in  such 
a  manner  as  to  exclude  a  large  number  of  such  articles.  Let 
us  consider,  for  example,  the  category  of  what  modern  econ- 
omists call  "unique  values"  or  "scarcity  values,"  articles 
which  owe  their  value  to  their  extreme  scarcity,  which  can- 
not be  reproduced  by  labor,  and  the  value  of  which  is  ob- 
viously independent  of  the  amount  of  labor  which  was  origi- 
nally necessary  to  produce  them.  To  this  category  belong 


VALUE  AND   PRICE  127 

such  articles  as  great  auk's  eggs,  rare  postage  stamps,  auto- 
graph letters,  rare  manuscripts  and  other  articles  associated 
with  great  personages  and  events — such  as  Napoleon's  snuff- 
box, Oliver  Cromwell's  sword,  or  the  mummy  of  Rameses. 

We  need  only  to  consider  the  terms  in  which  Marx  formu- 
lates his  theory  to  see  the  irrelevance  of  all  that  criticism 
which  argues  that,  because  such  unique  values  cannot  be 
accounted  for  on  the  basis  of  the  labor  spent  in  their  pro- 
duction, the  labor  theory  of  value  must  be  defective.  As 
an  explanation  of  all  values  of  every  kind  it  may  be  admitted 
that  the  theory  is  not  all-inclusive.  But  that  is  judging  it 
upon  a  wrong  basis,  and  differs  only  in  the  degree  of  its 
stupidity  from  condemning  the  theory  because  it  does  not 
explain  how  the  circle  may  be  squared.  Such  articles  are 
not  reproducible  by  labor,  that  is  to  say,  no  possible  amount 
of  human  labor  could  reproduce  the  exact  utilities  in  them. 
Napoleon's  snuff-box  or  Cromwell's  sword  might  be  exactly 
duplicated  as  regards  their  physical  properties,  but  the 
special  quality  which  gives  them  their  great  value,  their 
association  with  the  great  historical  personages  to  whom 
they  once  belonged,  is  not  reproducible.  A  morbid  collector 
might  be  willing  to  give  a  fortune  for  an  authenticated  tooth 
of  Julius  Caesar,  but  that  fact  would  not  in  any  manner 
tend  to  weaken  the  Marxian  theory  of  value.  That  theory 
deals  with  the  system  of  production  and  exchange  prevalent 
"in  those  societies  in  which  the  capitalist  mode  of  production 
prevails"  and  the  production  of  Napoleon's  snuff-boxes, 
Shakespearian  folios,  great  auks'  eggs  and  Caxton  books  is 
not  a  part  of  that  system. 

But  let  us  consider  "scarcity  values"  of  another  kind. 
A  man  walking  across  the  desert  picks  up  a  diamond,  then 
another,  and  yet  again  another.  The  exertions  of  a  few  min- 
utes have  given  him  diamonds  valued  at  thousands  of  dollars. 
How  is  the  value  of  the  diamonds  determined?  Surely  not 
by  the  labor  which  was  spent  in  picking  them  up.  That 
much  is  self-evident,  and  those  critics  of  the  Marxian  the- 
ory who,  like  Bohm-Bawerk,  suppose  meteoric  lumps  of 
gold  falling  to  earth  and  being  picked  up,  and  imagine  that 
the  theory  can  be  thus  easily  disposed  of,  overlook  its 
central  idea.  In  the  case  of  the  diamonds,  their  value  is 
determined  by  the  amount  of  social  labor  necessary,  on  an 


128  ELEMENTS   OF   SOCIALISM 

average,  to  reproduce  them,  that  is,  to  secure  an  equal  num- 
ber of  carats  of  equal  purity.  If  diamonds  could  be  normally 
obtained  so  easily  their  value  would  fall  to  zero :  they  would 
become  what  the  economists  call  "disutilities."  So  in  the 
case  of  Professor  Bohm-Bawerk's  imaginary  lump  of  meteoric 
gold:  if  gold  usually  fell  from  the  heavens  in  big  lumps, 
so  that  all  we  needed  to  do  to  secure  a  sufficient  supply  was 
to  go  and  gather  the  lumps,  the  value  of  gold  would  be  deter- 
mined by  the  amount  of  labor  necessary,  on  an  average,  to 
gather  it  up.  The  value  of  gold  might  then  fall  below  that 
of  coal  or  iron. 

(6)  The  meaning  of  "labor":  What  do  we  mean  by 
"labor"?  One  of  Marx's  critics,  Mr.  W.  H.  Mallock,  who 
criticises  the  definition  of  labor  which  Marx  gives,  himself 
defines  it  as  "the  faculties  of  an  individual  applied  to  his 
own  labor,"1  as  distinguished  from  "ability,"  which  consists 
of  the  intellectual  faculty  of  direction  applied  to  the  superin- 
tendence and  direction  of  the  manual  labor  of  other  people. 
Against  this  silly  jumble  of  words,  which  means  nothing, 
let  us  set  the  luminous  and  lucid  definition  of  Marx:  "By 
labor  power  or  capacity  for  labor  is  to  be  understood  all 
those  mental  and  physical  qualities  existing  in  a  human  being 
which  he  exercises  when  he  produces  a  use-value  of  any 
description."2  In  the  light  of  this  definition  it  becomes 
very  evident  that  all  the  numerous  criticisms  which  rest 
upon  the  assumption  that  Marx  regarded  only  ordinary 
manual  labor  as  creating  value  fall  of  their  own  weight. 
Like  all  other  economists,  Marx  includes  in  his  concept  of 
labor  every  form  of  productive  effort,  mental  as  well  as 
physical. 

The  meaning  of  the  term  "socially  necessary  human 
labor"  which  Marx  uses  may  be  more  easily  expressed  by 
the  term  abstract  labor.  It  must  be  confessed  that  this  is 
somewhat  difficult  to  comprehend.  It  is  easy  to  see  that, 
because  the  word  labor  may  be  equally  applied  to  simple, 
unskilled  manual  labor  and  to  labor  which  is  highly  skilled 
and  specialized,  any  theory  which  makes  labor  the  determi- 
nant of  value  must  lead  to  difficulty  and  confusion  unless 

1  Socialism,  by  W.  H.  Mallock,  M.A.,  of  England,  The  National  Civic 
Federation,  New  York,  p.  36. 

2  Capital,  by  Karl  Marx  (Kerr  edition),  Vol.  I.,  p.  186. 


VALUE   AND   PRICE  129 

some  means  is  employed  whereby  all  labor  is  reduced  to  one 
common  denominator.  This  Marx  does  by  reducing  all 
kinds  of  labor  to  simple,  abstract  labor. 

In  other  words,  Marx  regards  highly  skilled  labor  as  so 
much  ordinary  unskilled  labor  multiplied.  An  hour  of 
skilled  labor  contains  several  hours  of  simple,  unskilled  labor, 
for  we  must  somehow  and  somewhere  reckon  the  social  labor 
spent  in  acquiring  the  skill.  This  reduction  of  superior 
labor  to  average,  unskilled  labor  appears  to  be  purely 
arbitrary,  and  makes  labor  as  abstract  a  term  as  value.  It 
is  true  that  average  unskilled  labor  varies  greatly  in  char- 
acter in  different  countries  at  different  times,  but  in  a  given 
society  it  is  as  stable  as  anything  human  can  be.  But  while 
this  reduction  of  all  labor  to  terms  of  average  unskilled  labor 
appears  to  be  purely  arbitrary,  in  reality  it  is  only  a  theo- 
retical formulation  of  an  empirical  law  of  every-day  life.  The 
reduction  of  all  forms  of  labor  to  one  common  form  or 
standard  is  made  every  day  in  actual  exchange.  Commodi- 
ties varying  greatly  are  uniformly  valued  in  money.  But 
money  itself  is  a  commodity,  and  the  exchange  through  its 
medium  of  other  commodities  which  are  the  products  of 
many  different  kinds  of  labor,  implies  the  ultimate  reduction 
of  the  value  of  all  to  the  value-basis  of  one.  This  process, 
too,  like  the  determination  of  value  itself,  is  not  the  result 
of  conscious  effort  on  the  part  of  individuals  or  of  society, 
but  goes  on  unconsciously  and  indirectly,  through  the 
higgling  of  the  market.  There  is  not,  and  cannot  be,  any 
absolute  measure  of  value.  All  value  is  relative — the  value 
of  commodities  being  measured  by  other  commodities. 
Neither  is  there  any  absolute  measure  of  the  labor  time 
contained  in  commodities.  All  that  Marx  claims  is  that 
by  a  social  process,  namely  exchange,  the  ratio  of  which  is 
determined  by  the  higgling  of  the  market,  all  forms  of  labor 
are  ultimately  expressed  in,  and  therefore  measured  by, 
simple  human  labor. 

(c)  Productive  ability:  It  is  sometimes  urged  that  the 
Marxian  theory  of  value  is  deficient  in  that  it  excludes,  or 
at  least  does  not  duly  regard,  directive  or  managerial  ability. 
It  is  only  necessary  here  to  point  out  that  in  so  far  as  this 
directive  ability  is  productive  in  any  sense  it  is  clearly 
comprehended  by  the  definition  of  labor  which  Marx  gives, 


130  ELEMENTS   OF   SOCIALISM 

and  which  we  have  already  quoted.  So  far  as  the  claim  is 
made  that  profits  are  really  nothing  more  than  proper 
rewards  for  the  exercise  of  such  directive  ability,  we  shall 
consider  it  under  Surplus- Value. 

The  price-form  (or  price-expression)  of  value:  In  con- 
sidering the  nature  of  commodities  we  saw  that  in  order  to 
be  a  commodity  an  article  must  have  two  characteristics: 
it  must  be  a  useful  object — using  that  term  now  in  its 
ordinary,  non-technical  sense — and  satisfy  some  need  of  a 
particular  individual,  and  it  must  be  an  exchangeable 
object,  having  a  social  use-value.  The  usefulness  of  an 
object  to  its  owner,  using  the  term  "usefulness"  as  before, 
may  be  said  to  be  its  value  in  its  natural  form,  while  its 
exchangeability  may  be  said  to  be  its  value  in  social  form. 
It  is  only  the  latter  form  of  value  which  the  science  of  eco- 
nomics considers.  The  simple  utility  of  an  object  may  be 
considered  and  estimated  by  itself,  without  regard  to  other 
objects,  but  not  so  its  exchange-value.  If  we  take  a  barrel 
of  flour  we  can  at  once  perceive  its  simple  utility.  So  many 
loaves  of  bread  can  be  made  from  it,  which  will  provide 
us  with  food  for  so  many  days.  To  ascertain  this  we  do  not 
need  to  compare  it  with  any  other  object.  But  if  we  desire 
to  estimate  its  value  in  an  economic  sense,  its  worth,  we 
are  compelled  to  consider,  not  its  inherent  qualities,  but 
its  relation  to  other  objects. 

Considered  as  economic  values,  all  commodities  are  con- 
crete expressions  of  human  labor.  This  common  quality 
makes  them  exchangeable  against  each  other.  But  the 
direct  exchange  of  commodities  is  not  a  practicable  way  of 
carrying  on  the  exchange  relations  of  modern  society.  So 
all  commodities  are  exchanged  through  the  medium  of  one 
commodity,  called  money.  Thus,  the  value  of  all  commod- 
ities is  expressed  in  quantitative  terms  of  the  medium  of 
exchange,  that  is,  in  amounts  of  money.  If  commodities 
were  exchanged  for  each  other  by  means  of  direct  barter, 
it  would  be  found  that  some  commodities  would  exchange 
equally  for  some  other  commodities,  because  they  happened 
to  represent  equal  amounts  of  socially  necessary  human  labor. 
Thus,  a  bushel  of  wheat  and  a  yard  of  linen  might  be  equal 
values.  Other  commodities,  representing  unequal  amounts  of 
socially  necessary  labor,  would  be  exchangeable  according  to 


VALUE   AND   PRICE  131 

their  relative  social  labor  content.  A  yard  of  silk,  for 
example,  might  be  worth  five  yards  of  linen  and  a  ton  of 
coal  worth  two  yards  of  silk. 

Money :  Let  us  suppose  that  it  was  desired  to  adopt  some 
one  of  the  foregoing  commodities  as  a  standard  of  value,  by 
which  the  value  of  the  others  might  be  measured  and  through 
which  they  might  be  exchanged.  The  commodity  so  chosen 
would  become  money,  and  the  system  of  exchange  would 
become  a  system  of  money  economy.  If  we  look  over  the 
list  of  commodities  and  consider  their  special  characteristics 
we  shall  note  at  once  that  two  of  them,  wheat  and  coal, 
are  too  bulky  to  serve  conveniently  as  media  of  exchange. 
It  would  not  be  convenient  to  transfer  such  bulky  payments 
as  five  tons  of  coal  or  fifty  bushels  of  wheat  each  time  ten 
yards  of  silk  changed  hands.  Linen  would  be  a  far  better 
medium.  In  case  it  was  selected  it  would  be  money  and  the 
value  of  the  other  commodities  would  be  expressed  in  yards 
of  linen. 

In  various  times  and  places  hides,  salt,  shells,  wheat, 
powder,  tobacco,  and  a  multitude  of  other  things  have  served 
as  money.  But  for  various  reasons  the  precious  metals, 
gold  and  silver,  have  been  most  favored  by  trading  nations. 
How  did  gold  come  to  be  chosen  as  the  standard  of  value 
by  most  of  the  great  modern  nations?  Because  gold  was 
relatively  rare  and  it  required  a  large  amount  of  labor,  on 
an  average,  to  procure  a  small  quantity  of  it;  a  very  small 
piece  had  a  very  high  value  as  compared  with,  say,  iron. 
This  made  it  admirable  as  a  medium  of  exchange  for  the 
reason  that  a  large  value  in  gold  could  be  carried  or  stored 
away  more  easily  than  an  equal  value  in  a  bulkier  commod- 
ity. Thus,  before  its  advantages  caused  its  selection  as  the 
value-measure  of  commerce,  gold  was  a  commodity  like 
all  other  commodities,  subject  to  the  same  laws.  Even  now 
all  gold  is  not  money,  and  such  part  of  the  gold  supply  of 
the  world  as  is  not  money  is  subject  to  the  same  laws  as 
all  other  commodities,  subject,  of  course,  to  the  qualification 
that  the  monetization  of  gold  protects  it  and  gives  it  a 
measure  of  monopoly-value. 

Relation  of  price  to  value :  Before  we  can  exchange  goods 
through  the  medium  of  money  we  must  somehow  reduce  the 
value  of  the  goods  to  money  terms.  Value  has  no  corporeal 


132  ELEMENTS   OF   SOCIALISM 

existence,  that  is,  no  existence  apart  from  the  comparison 
of  things  with  each  other.  It  is  an  abstraction.  When  we 
express  the  value  of  a  given  commodity  in  money  terms, 
we  really  measure  it  first  of  all  in  money,  and,  through 
money,  in  other  commodities.  This  measure  of  value  we 
call  price.  Although  some  economists  use  "price"  and 
"value"  as  interchangeable  terms,  they  are  not  synonymous 
and  should  not  be  so  used.  They  are  closely  related  but 
not  identical.  If  value  were  an  absolute  thing  an  absolutely 
perfect  price-form  would  be  identical  with  the  value.  Neither 
of  these  conditions  exists,  however,  and,  as  an  approxima- 
tion of  value,  price  is  subject  to  many  fluctuations.  In  a 
free  market,  prices  sometimes  fall  below  and  sometimes  rise 
above  values.  If  we  conceive  value  as  production  cost  plus 
average  profit  we  shall  be  able  to  understand  this  more 
clearly.  The  production  cost  of  commodity  A  and  com- 
modity B  being  equal,  their  values  are  equal.  But  in  actual 
trade  A  may,  for  some  time,  sell  for  either  more  or  less  than 
B.  In  a  free  market — and  of  such  Marx  wrote — this  is  a 
result  of  the  relation  of  supply  and  demand  to  each  other 
with  regard  to  the  commodity  affected. 

If  the  supply  of  commodity  A  greatly  exceeds  the  demand 
for  it,  the  price  will  naturally  fall.  If  the  demand  greatly 
exceeds  the  supply,  on  the  other  hand,  the  price  will  rise. 
In  the  case  of  commodity  B  there  may  be  a  more  perfect 
equilibrium  between  supply  and  demand,  so  that  its  price 
remains  stable  and  closely  approximates  its  real  value.  Thus, 
we  have  the  phenomenon  of  equal  values  selling  at  unequal 
prices.  But  we  must  not  forget  that  the  unequal  prices  do 
represent  equal  values.  That  this  is  the  case  we  can  easily 
ascertain  by  watching  closely  the  effect  of  supply  and  demand 
upon  prices,  and  noting  how  narrowly  it  is  bounded  by 
value.  Over-supply  causes  a  depreciation  of  prices.  But 
presently  supply  slackens.  Producers  will  not  continue 
production  at  their  usual  rate  of  speed  unless  they  can  get  a 
price  approximately  equal  to  the  value  of  their  commodity. 
As  a  result  of  the  diminished  supply,  prices  rise.  Or  again, 
prices  are  soaring  as  a  consequence  of  an  insufficient  supply. 
Demand  is  brisk,  but  supply  is  slow  and  sluggish.  Presently, 
there  is  a  perceptible  slackening  of  demand,  or  a  perceptible 
stimulation  of  supply,  or  both.  Prices  fall  in  consequence. 


VALUE  AND   PRICE  133 

It  is  not  denied,  therefore,  that  the  relation  of  supply  to 
demand"  has  a  very  important  effect  upon  trade,  that  it 
causes  many  of  the  commercial  crises  through  fluctuations 
of  prices.  All  that  is  claimed  is  that  it  is  not  the  determinant 
of  value,  and  that  it  is  value,  as  such,  which  sets  the  limits 
to  the  influence  of  supply  and  demand  upon  prices. 

The  "marginal  utility"  theory:  As  a  theory  of  value,  the 
so-called  "Austrian"  theory  of  final  or  marginal  utility  does 
not  differ,  except  in  the  form  of  its  expression,  from  the 
old  supply  and  demand  theory.  All  that  we  have  said  of 
the  latter  theory  applies  to  it.  According  to  this  theory, 
the  value  of  anything  is  determined  by  our  estimate  of  its 
capacity  to  satisfy  the  wants  of  ourselves  or  others,  in  other 
words,  by  its  desirability — to  quote  Jevons — or  the  degree 
of  its  social  utility.  To  say  that  the  value  of  an  object  is 
determined  by  its  power  to  give  satisfaction,  as  Menger, 
Jevons  and  others  do,  and  to  say  that  it  is  determined  by 
the  amount  of  labor  socially  necessary  for  its  production, 
as  Marx  does,  appears  to  involve  a  violent  contradic- 
tion. 

But  if  Menger  and  Jevons  really  mean  by  value  what 
Marx  means  by  price,  and  not  what  he  means  by  value,  the 
contradiction  disappears.  On  the  other  hand,  if  we  assume 
that  Menger  and  Jevons  are  not  referring  to  price  but  to 
value,  and  find  that  they  admit  that  the  influence  of  marginal 
utility,  is  like  that  of  supply  and  demand,  ultimately  bounded 
by  the  amount  of  social  labor,  while  Marx  admits  the 
influence  of  marginal  utility  in  that  sense — that  is,  upon  the 
price-form  of  value  rather  than  upon  value  itself — the 
violent  contradiction  also  disappears.  Among  the  Socialist 
writers  of  to-day  there  is  an  increasing  tendency  to  regard 
the  Marxian  theory  of  value  as  including  the  marginal  utility 
theory. 

Propositions  to  be  established:  It  is  our  present  purpose 
to  attempt  to  establish  two  propositions.  They  are  (1)  that 
the  marginal  utility  theory  of  value  is  the  supply  and  demand 
theory  under  another  name;  (2)  that  Marx's  theory  of  value 
definitely  includes  all  that  is  important  in  the  theory  of 
marginal  utility.  In  order  that  we  may  not  misunderstand, 
or  misstate  the  theory,  we  will  adopt  the  statement  of  it 
made  by  Professor  Seligman,  one  of  its  leading  exponents, 


134  ELEMENTS   OF   SOCIALISM 

italicizing  a  few  passages  in  order  to  attract  special  attention 
to  them: 

"If  a  starving  wayfarer  suddenly  spies  an  apple,  it  will  have  a  supreme 
utility  for  him  because  it  stands  between  him  and  death.  If  he  finds 
a  second  apple,  it  will  still  be  welcome,  but  it  will  fill  a  somewhat  less 
intense  want.  With  every  additional  apple  his  appetite  will  be  more 
appeased,  until  with,  let  us  say,  the  tenth  apple  he  will  reach  the  point 
of  satiety  and  be  on  the  margin  of  doubt  whether  to  consume  any  more. 
The  utility  of  each  apple — its  capacity  to  satisfy  his  desire — has  dimin- 
ished until  the  tenth  apple  is  the  last  which  affords  any  utility  at  the 
moment.  The  utility  of  this  tenth  apple  is  called  final  because  it  is 
the  final  apple,  or  marginal  because  on  the  margin  of  desire. 

"It  is  plain  that  the  marginal  utility  of  any  apple  depends  on  the 
quantity  at  one's  disposal.  The  greater  the  quantity,  the  less  keenly 
will  he  feel  the  particular  want.  If  he  had  only  five  apples,  the  marginal 
utility  of  the  fifth  would  be  considerable  because  his  last  want  satisfied 
would  still  be  urgent.  The  degree  of  marginal  utility  depends  on  the 
strength  of  the  want  last  satisfied,  or,  it  might  be  said,  on  the  urgency 
of  the  next  satisfied  want. 

"The  second  point  to  be  noted  is  that  at  any  given  time  the  utility 
of  each  apple  is  equal  to  that  of  the  la  t  and  therefore  to  that  of  any 
other  (of  the  same  size  and  quality).  If  the  available  supply  is  five 
apples,  any  one  of  the  five  apples  may  be  considered  the  final  or  marginal 
unit,  that  is,  the  last  unit  in  point  of  time.  The  wayfarer  will  lay  his 
hands  on  any  one  of  the  five  without  particular  choice;  whether  he  be- 
gins with  one  or  with  another  is  immaterial,  because  he  knows  that  one 
is  as  good  as  another. 

"Thirdly,  in  estimating  the  utility  of  the  entire  supply  of  apples, 
we  must  distinguish  between  the  total  utility  and  the  marginal  utility 
of  the  stock.  The  total  utility  of  a  stock  is  obtained  by  adding  the 
utility  of  each  additional  apple  to  that  of  its  predecessor.  It  will  ac- 
cordingly grow  until  the  point  of  satiety  has  been  reached.  Ten  apples 
possess  more  total  utility  than  five.  The  marginal  utility  of  the  stock, 
however,  is  always  equal  to  the  marginal  utility  of  the  final  unit  multi- 
plied by  the  number  of  units.  The  marginal  utility  of  two  apples  will 
be  twice  that  of  the  second,  of  four  apples,  four  times  that  of  the  fourth. 
Here,  as  before,  the  marginal  utility  of  the  stock  will  increase,  but  not 
up  to  the  point  of  satiety.  After  a  limit  has  been  reached,  the  marginal 
utility  of  a  stock  begins  to  decline.  The  marginal  utility  of  eight  apples 
may  be  less  than  that  of  five,  even  though  the  total  utility  is  undoubt- 
edly more. 

"...  When  we  speak  of  the  marginal  use  of  a  commodity  to  any  one,  we 
think  of  him  as  on  the  brink  of  not  wanting  any  more.  He  may  reach 
the  margin  because,  with  the  diminishing  utility  of  each  increment,  he  will, 
if  the  supply  is  large  enough,  come  to  the  point  where  there  will  be  no 
consciousness  of  any  economic  value  at  all." l 

Proposition    I:  Professor    Seligman's    statement    of    the 
theory  is  very  lucid  and  simple.    From  it  we  gather  that  the 
1  E.  R.  A.  Seligman,  Principles  of  .Economics  (1905)  pp.  177-178. 


VALUE  AND  PRICE.  135 

marginal  utility  of  commodities  is  inversely  proportionate  to 
the  quantity  available.  If  there  were  only  one  apple,  the 
starving  wayfarer  would  be  willing  to  give  all  he  possessed 
to  secure  it.  Having  consumed  it  and  nine  others,  he  is 
willing  to  take  a  tenth,  but  is  so  near  the  point  of  satiety 
that  he  will  give  little  or  nothing  for  it.  Offer  him  a  hundred 
more  and  he  will  spurn  them.  He  does  not  want  them;  they 
are  not  utilities  now,  but  disutilities.  What  is  this  indeed 
but  the  supply  and  demand  theory? 

Instead  of  a  hungry  wayfarer,  let  us  take  a  whole  com- 
munity. Apples  being  very  scarce  command  high  prices. 
There  is  a  large  effective  demand  for  them.  For  every  apple 
there  are  ten  bidders.  Now,  some  enterprising  dealer, 
hearing  of  the  good  market  for  apples,  brings  in  a  hundred 
bushels  and  offers  them  for  sale.  The  price  he  gets,  while 
still  high,  is  less  than  the  price  which  apples  brought  before 
when  there  were  ten  bidders  for  every  apple.  Now  a  second 
dealer  appears  with  a  thousand  bushels,  so  that  there  are 
more  than  enough  apples  to  satisfy  the  demand,  and,  in 
consequence,  apples  fall  in  price.  In  the  language  of  the 
final  utility  theory,  their  degree  of  utility  has  decreased 
as  the  quantity  available  has  increased.  If  a  third  dealer 
should  bring  in  a  thousand  bushels  more,  it  would  be  impos- 
sible to  give  the  apples  away,  perhaps.  They  would  be 
valueless,  or,  in  Professor  Seligman's  words,  "the  utility 
is  zero  and  the  commodity  is  no  longer  an  economic 
good." 

Jevons,  to  whom  more  than  to  any  other  economist  of  the 
English-speaking  world,  the  development  of  the  theory  is 
due,  admits  that  the  final  degree  of  utility  ''varies  with  the 
quantity  of  commodity,  and  ultimately  decreases  as  that  quantity 
increases."1  Oddly  enough,  he  chooses  for  an  illustration 
of  his  theory  exactly  the  same  example  as  Lord  Lauderdale 
chose  in  1804  to  illustrate  his  theory  of  the  dependence  of 
value  upon  the  interaction  of  demand  and  scarcity,  and  his 
reasoning  is  the  same.  Says  Lauderdale:  " Water  ...  is 
one  of  the  things  most  useful  to  man,  yet  it  seldom  possesses 
any  value;  and  the  reason  of  this  is  evident;  it  rarely  occurs 
that  to  its  quality  of  utility  is  added  the  circumstance 
of  existing  in  scarcity;  but  if,  in  the  course  of  a  siege,  or 

1  W.  S.  Jevons,  The  Theory  of  Political  Economy,  p.  62. 


136  ELEMENTS   OF  SOCIALISM 

a  sea-voyage,  it  becomes  scarce,  it  instantly  acquires 
value."1 

Compare  this  with  Jevons:  "We  cannot  live  a  day  without 
water,  and  yet  in  ordinary  circumstances  we  set  no  value  on 
it.  Why  is  this?  Simply  because  we  usually  have  so  much 
of  it  that  its  final  degree  of  utility  is  reduced  nearly  to  zero. 
.  .  .  Let  the  supply  run  short  by  drought,  and  we  begin  to 
feel  the  higher  degree  of  utility,  of  which  we  think  but  little 
at  other  times."  2 

Unless  we  are  to  revolutionize  the  English  language  and 
change  its  entire  vocabulary,  these  citations  must  be  regarded 
as  sufficiently  proving  our  first  proposition,  namely,  that 
the  marginal  or  final  utility  theory  of  value  is,  fundamentally, 
the  same  as  the  supply  and  demand  theory  of  an  earlier 
generation  of  economists.  As  such,  it  is  subject  to  the  limita- 
tions set  for  it  by  the  nature  of  value  itself.  Marginal 
utility  does  not  confer  value  upon  the  masses  of  commodities 
the  exchange  of  which  constitutes  the  trade  of  capitalist 
society,  however  much  it  may  affect  the  realization  of  the 
value  in  price  form  of  any  particular  commodity  at  any  given 
time  or  place.  This  is  the  essential  point  to  be  made  against 
the  theory  as  a  theory  of  value.  That  considered  as  a  state- 
ment of  the  influence  of  relative  scarcity  or  abundance  upon 
prices  it  is  in  some  respects  superior  to  the  older  formulations 
of  the  same  principle,  and  more  useful  as  an  explanation 
of  particular  price  movements,  may  be  granted  by  the  most 
orthodox  Marxist. 

Proposition  II :  Our  second  proposition,  that  the  Marxian 
theory  of  value  includes  all  that  is  important  in  the  marginal 
utility  theory,  can,  we  believe,  be  easily  established.  We 
accept  as  our  initial  premise  the  conclusion  arrived  at  as  a 
result  of  the  consideration  of  our  first  proposition,  namely, 
that  the  marginal  utility  theory  is  of  importance  only  as  a 
statement  of  the  main  cause  of  price  fluctuations  in  a  state 
of  free  competition.  Now,  Marx  never  at  any  time  denied 
the  influence  of  relative  scarcity  and  abundance  upon  prices. 
On  the  contrary,  his  whole  theory  involves  recognition  of 
the  fact  that  the  interaction  of  supply  and  demand — or  as 

1  Lauderdale,  An  Inquiry  into  the  Nature  and  Origin  of  Public  Wealth, 
p.  16 
*  Jevons,  op.  cit.,  p.  62. 


VALUE  AND  PRICE  137 

we  may  now  say,  the  degree  of  utility — regulates  "the  tem- 
porary fluctuations  of  market  prices."1  His  explanation  of 
the  manner  hi  which  the  "higgling  of  the  market"  fixes 
the  ratio  of  exchange  between  different  commodities  may  be 
cited  in  proof  of  the  fact  that  he  gives  it  full  recognition. 
But  what  Marx  does  is  to  point  out  the  limitations  of  this 
influence,  imposed  upon  it  by  value  itself.  When  supply 
and  demand  are  equal,  prices  are  said  to  represent  "true 
value,"  or  "pure  value."  Under  such  conditions,  when 
supply  and  demand  balance  each  other,  what  creates  value  f 

Nor  is  Marx  blind,  as  Bohm-Bawerk  and  his  followers 
allege,  to  the  varying  degrees  of  utility.  His  theory  rests 
upon  the  fundamental  assumption  that  value  is  inseparable 
from  social  utility  as  distinguished  from  mere  usefulness. 
The  most  useful  thing,  inherently  considered,  for  which 
there  is  no  effective  demand  can  have  no  value,  no  matter 
how  much  labor  has  been  consumed  in  its  production.  All 
his  reasoning  implies  a  recognition  not  only  of  general  social 
utility,  but  of  relative  social  utility.  When  he  uses  the  term 
"socially  necessary  labor"  it  is  not  merely  "average"  labor 
that  he  refers  to.  A  commodity  may  have  been  produced 
hi  the  average  labor  time,  but  if  that  time  was  not  spent 
for  a  "socially  necessary"  purpose,  that  is,  if  the  commodity 
itself  was  not  socially  necessary,  it  would  be  wrong  to  speak 
of  the  commodity  as  embodying  so  much  socially  necessary 
labor.  If  a  man  in  the  tropics  makes  snowshoes,  even  though 
he  makes  them  with  average  speed  and  skill,  the  snowshoes 
will  not  be  the  embodiment  of  "socially  necessary  labor" 
any  more  than  they  themselves  will  be  socially  necessary. 
If  a  trader  takes  a  lot  of  panama  hats  to  the  arctic  circle 
the  hats  will  have  no  value,  even  though  each  one  consumed 
hi  the  making  an  average  amount  of  labor,  time  and  skill. 
The  reason  is  obvious:  there  is  no  demand  for  the  hats — 
they  are  not  socially  necessary,  and,  therefore,  are  valueless. 
It  is  a  very  puerile  criticism  to  point  to  the  fact  that  the 
hats  are  so  many  "embodiments  of  human  labor,"  and  to  cite 
the  illustration  as  a  "refutation"  of  Marx's  theory.  In  the 
first  place,  the  hats  themselves  do  not  conform  to  the 
fundamental  requirement  of  the  theory  that  commodities 
must  be  social  use-values.  In  the  second  place,  the  labor 

lVcdue,  Price  and  Profit,  by  Karl  Marx,  p.  24. 


138  ELEMENTS   OF   SOCIALISM 

embodied  in  the  socially  unnecessary  hats  cannot,  in  that 
time  and  place,  be  considered  as  "socially  necessary  labor." 
The  term  as  Marx  uses  it  is  an  extension  of  his  concept  of 
social  use-value  to  the  labor  spent  upon  the  production  of 
an  object.  It  is  therefore  quite  evident  that  Marx  never 
loses  sight  of  the  factor  of  relative  utility.  All  that  the  theory 
of  supply  and  demand,  and  its  modern  statement  the  theory 
of  final  utility  offers  is  a  mode  of  explaining  the  fluctuations 
of  prices  around  the  norm  of  value.  And  that  is  included  in 
the  Marxian  theory. 

Jevons'  admission:  On  the  other  hand,  it  remains  to  be 
said  that  the  claim  here  set  forth  of  the  limitations  of  the 
marginal  utility  theories,  under  whatever  name  they  may 
be  put  forth,  has  been  substantially  admitted  by  no  less  an 
authority  than  Professor  Jevons  himself.  It  is  admitted 
by  Jevons  that  the  final  utility  of  commodities  is  not,  in 
actual  practice,  determined  independently  of  the  labor  neces- 
sary for  their  production.  He  says  in  one  passage  of  his 
celebrated  work  that  his  theory  of  final  utility  "leads  directly 
to  the  well-known  law,  as  stated  in  the  ordinary  language  of 
economists,  that  value  is  proportional  to  the  cost  of  pro- 
duction."1 He  rests  his  whole  logical  structure  ultimately 
upon  labor,  making  it  the  final  determinant  of  value.  His 
argument  is  as  follows: 

(A)  The  cost  of  production  determines  supply. 

(B)  Supply  determines  final  degree  of  utility. 

(C)  Final  degree  of  utility  determines  value. 

If  A,  cost  of  production,  determines  B,  degree  of  utility, 
and  C  is  in  turn  caused  by  B,  is  not  A  the  ultimate  cause  of 
C?  The  greater  contains  the  lesser,  and  the  Marxian  theory 
of  value  contains  all  that  there  is  of  value  in  the  theory  of 
marginal  utility. 

Monopoly-price:  In  view  of  the  foregoing,  it  is  only 
necessary  to  refer  briefly  to  the  subject  of  monopoly-price. 
When  we  discuss  the  subject  of  value  and  price  we  assume 
free  market  conditions.  Under  such  conditions  prices  may 
for  a  time  rise  above  or  fall  below  values,  but  sooner  or  later 
the  equilibrium  of  the  two  forces  will  be  restored  and  prices 
will  approximate  values.  Where  monopoly  or  near-monopoly 
exists,  we  have  to  reckon  with  a  new  factor,  the  artificial 

1W.  S.  Jevons,  The  Theory  of  Political  Economy,  3rd  ed.,  p.  186. 


VALUE  AND  PRICE  139 

elevation  of  prices  above  value — virtually  an  abrogation  of 
the  law  of  value.  The  development  of  great  monopolies  and 
near-monopolies  has  greatly  increased  the  number  of  com- 
modities which,  for  considerable  periods,  are  placed  outside 
of  the  sphere  of  the  labor  theory  of  value,  their  price  being 
determined  solely  by  the  desire  of  the  buyers  on  the  one 
hand,  and,  on  the  other  hand,  the  power  of  the  sellers  to 
control  the  supply. 


140  ELEMENTS   OF   SOCIALISM 

SUMMARY 

1.  Marx  maintains  throughout  his  work   a  sociological  point  of 
view,  and  discusses  production  only  under  the  social  conditions  of 
capitalism. 

2.  An  object  is  a  commodity  and  has  exchange-value  only  when  it 
possesses  social  utility. 

3.  The  relative  exchange-values  of  commodities  are  determined  by 
the  average  amount  of  socially  necessary  human  labor  needed  to  re- 
produce them  at  a  given  time  and  place. 

4.  The  price  of  a  commodity  fluctuates  about  its  value  in  response 
to  the  interaction  of  supply  and  demand. 

5.  There  is  no  essential  difference  between  the  marginal  utility 
theory  of  value  and  the  supply  and  demand  theory;  and  the  Marxian 
theory  definitely  includes  all  the  important  features  of  other  theories 
of  value. 

QUESTIONS 

1.  How  does  Marx  define  Labor? 

2.  What  are  the  limits  of  Marx's  study  of  economic  production? 

3.  What  is  a  commodity? 

4.  What,  according  to  Marx,  determines  relative  exchange-value? 

5.  How  does  this  position  compare  with  the  view  of  Petty?     Of 
Adam  Smith?    Of  Ricardo?     Of  J.  S.  Mill? 

6.  How  are  unique  values  determined? 

7.  Explain  how  the  labor  theory  can  be  applied  to  the  determination 
of  the  value  of  diamonds? 

8.  Explain  the  concept  of  abstract  labor. 

9.  What  is  meant  by  price?     How  is  it  determined? 

10.  What  is  the  difference  between  price  and  value? 


LITERATURE 

Boudin,  L.  B.,  The  Theoretical  System  of  Karl  Marx. 

Deville,  G.,  The  People's  Marx. 

Hyndman,  H.  M.,  The  Economics  of  Socialism. 

Marx,  Karl,  Capital  (especially  Vol.  I.).  A  Contribution  to  the 
Critique  of  Political  Economy.  Wage  Labor  and  Capital.  Value,  Price 
and  Profit. 

Spargo,  John,  Socialism,  a  Summary  and  Interpretation  of  Socialist 
Principles,  Chap.  VII  and  VIII. 


CHAPTER  XIII 

SURPLUS-VALUE 

Introductory:  We  have  already  noted  the  fact  that  the 
form  of  industrial  society  in  which  we  live,  and  which  we 
call  capitalism,  is  characterized  by  the  production  and 
exchange  of  commodities  or  wares,  salable  goods.  The  sole 
motive  of  capitalist  enterprise  is  the  sale  of  goods  at  a  profit. 
So  long  as  the  capitalist  can  obtain  a  satisfactory  profit  he 
does  not  care — except  in  rare  instances,  which  need  not  be 
considered — what  kind  of  commodities  he  deals  in.  If  a 
greater  profit  can  be  obtained  from  the  manufacture  and 
sale  of  shoddy  clothing  than  from  the  manufacture  and  sale 
of  good  clothing  he  will,  so  far  as  he  is  free  to  do  so,  concern 
himself  with  the  former.  This  is  too  obvious  a  fact  to  require 
demonstration.  It  is  one  of  the  commonplace  expressions 
of  every-day  life  that  men  are  in  business  "for  the  profit 
there  is  in  it."  This  is  not  a  moral  criticism  of  capitalist 
society,  but  a  simple  recognition  of  one  of  its  essential  and 
characteristic  features. 

The  objective  of  capitalist  production  being  the  realiza- 
tion of  profit,  it  follows  that  if  our  analysis  of  capitalist 
society  is  comprehensive  and  helpful  we  must  learn  a  good 
deal  about  profit,  its  nature,  its  origin  and  its  function  in 
the  social  organism.  Marx's  theory  of  surplus-value  is  an 
explanation  of  these  phenomena. 

Exchange  of  equal  values :  In  our  discussion  of  value  and 
its  price-form  we  saw  that  the  exchange  of  commodities 
takes  place  through  the  medium  of  money,  itself  a  commodity. 
We  are  now  to  consider  the  process  of  exchange  itself.  That 
somehow  or  other  profits  are  realized  through  the  exchange 
of  commodities  is  evident,  but  that  does  not  mean  that  the 
proportion  of  the  total  of  existent  values  which  we  call 
profit  is  created  by  exchange.  On  the  contrary,  it  is  very 
easily  seen  that  it  is  not.  If  two  men,  A  and  B,  exchange 

141 


142  ELEMENTS   OF   SOCIALISM 

goods  of  unequal  value  for  each  other,  unit  for  unit,  it  is 
certain  that  one  will  receive  a  larger  for  a  lesser  value,  and 
so  profit  by  the  transaction.  It  is  equally  certain,  however, 
that  no  new  value  is  created  by  the  transaction.  The  sum 
total  of  values  is  the  same  after  the  transaction  as  before, 
only  a  change  in  ownership  has  taken  place,  not  a  change  in 
the  magnitude  of  the  values  themselves.  We  shall  have  to 
return  to  this  subject  later  on:  for  the  present  it  is  enough 
to  note  that,  even  when  unequal  values  are  exchanged, 
profit  is  not  created  by  the  act  of  exchange. 

Upon  the  whole,  the  exchange  of  commodities  takes  the 
form  of  the  exchange  of  equal  values.  This  does  not  mean 
that  all  commodities  are  exchanged  for  one  another,  unit 
for  unit.  A  lead  pencil  is  not  exchangeable  for  an  auto- 
mobile. What  is  meant  is  that,  as  a  general  rule,  capitalist 
exchange  consists  of  the  exchange  of  equal  values,  not  of 
unequal  ones.  The  basis  of  value  being  the  abstract  labor 
represented  by  the  object  of  value,  the  rule  is  that  commod- 
ities representing  equally  sums  of  abstract  labor  will  exchange 
for  one  another  upon  a  plane  of  equality.  If  the  unit  of 
commodity  A  represents  a  social  labor  content  of  100  and  the 
unit  of  commodity  B  represents  a  social  labor  content  of  10, 
then  the  exchange-value  of  A  as  compared  with  that  of  B 
will  be  as  ten  is  to  one — it  will  require  10  units  of  B  to  pur- 
chase 1  unit  of  A. 

Advantageous  exchange  without  profit:  Let  us  suppose  a 
case  of  simple  exchange.  A  farmer  has  100  bushels  of  wheat 
which  he  desires  to  exchange  for,  say,  farm  implements. 
A  manufacturer  of  farm  implements  who  desires  the  wheat 
offers  the  farmer  a  mowing  machine,  a  plow  and  a  horse- 
rake,  the  three  implements  being  approximately  equal  to 
the  wheat  in  value.  If  the  value  of  the  implements  was 
materially  less  than  that  of  the  wheat  the  farmer  would 
not  agree  to  the  bargain:  he  would  prefer  to  sell  the  wheat 
for  money  and  with  the  money  buy  the  implements  he  desired. 
On  the  other  hand,  the  manufacturer  would  likewise  be 
careful  to  insist  upon  getting  a  value  in  wheat  equal  to  the 
value  of  the  implements  he  was  giving.  The  transaction  is 
equally  beneficial  to  both  parties,  each  obtains  a  use-value 
for  what  is,  to  him,  not  a  use-value.  But  there  is  no  increase 
of  value  as  a  result  of  it,  no  profit. 


SURPLUS-VALUE  143 

If  the  exchange  instead  of  being  made  directly  had  been 
made  indirectly  through  the  medium,  the  farmer  selling  his 
wheat  for  100  dollars  and  then  paying  100  dollars  for  the 
implements  to  the  manufacturer,  who  in  turn  paid  100  dol- 
lars for  the  wheat,  the  result  would  not  be  different.  Exchange 
of  commodities  does  not  add  to  the  magnitude  of  their 
value  any  more  than  the  act  of  changing  a  twenty-dollar 
bill  for  twenty  one-dollar  bills  adds  to  the  amount  of  money. 

Wholesale  exchanges:  Stated  in  this  simple  form,  it  is 
easy  to  see  that  exchange  does  not  add  to  value.  But  the 
wholesale  exchange  which  goes  on  in  capitalist  society  re- 
quires a  vast  and  complicated  mechanism  to  be  exclusively 
devoted  to  the  circulation  of  commodities.  The  farmer  and 
the  manufacturer  of  implements  are  not  personally  acquainted. 
They  may  be  separated  by  hundreds  or  even  thousands  of 
miles.  So  the  farmer  sells  his  wheat  for  cash  to  dealers  who 
send  it  to  markets  scores  or  even  hundreds  of  miles  away, 
where  it  is  sold  for  cash  to  the  consumers.  On  the  other 
hand,  the  farmer  buys  his  implements  for  cash  from  a  dealer 
who  has  previously  bought  them  from  the  manufacturer  and 
paid  the  cost  of  their  transportation.  The  flour  is  sold  to 
the  consumer  at  a  price  considerably  higher  than  the  farmer 
received  for  it,  and  the  farmer  in  turn  pays  more  for  his 
implements  than  the  manufacturer's  price.  Sometimes  these 
price  increments  are  spoken  of  as  profits,  but  they  are  not 
profits  at  all.  The  cost  of  transporting  the  wheat  from  the 
farm  in  Dakota  to  the  market  in  Chicago  or  New  York,  to 
the  point  where  it  becomes  accessible  to  the  consumer,  of 
storing  it  properly,  and  of  retailing  it  in  the  quantities 
needed  by  individual  consumers,  must  be  met,  and  is  properly 
part  of  the  cost  of  production.  For  the  wheat  has  not  been 
"produced"  in  an  economic  sense  until  it  has  been  made  a 
utility  to  the  consumer.  The  same  thing  may  be  said  of 
the  implements  which  the  farmer  buys,  and  of  all  commodities 
in  general.  Thus  to  the  first,  or  simple,  production  cost, 
illustrated  in  the  cost  of  producing  wheat  on  the  farm  from 
sowing  to  threshing,  and  in  the  manufacture  of  shoes  at  the 
factory  from  the  raw  material,  leather,  to  the  finished  goods 
packed  for  shipment,  there  is  added  an  additional  cost 
which  brings  the  total  to  what  we  may  call  the  final,  or 
social  production  cost.  Just  as  relative  exchange  values 


144  ELEMENTS  OF   SOCIALISM 

are  measured  against  each  other  in  terms  of  abstract  labor 
by  the  higgling  of  the  market,  so  are  these  elements  of  final 
production  cost  adjusted  and  balanced. 

The  exchange  of  unequal  values :  The  exchange  of  unequal 
values  does  not  in  the  slightest  degree  affect  the  principle 
we  are  discussing.  While  normal  exchange  is  the  exchange 
of  equal  values,  the  exchange  of  unequal  values  is  not  infre- 
quent. A  large  number  of  the  class  of  middlemen,  jobbers, 
brokers,  dealers,  speculators,  and  so  on,  do  make  profits 
through  unequal  exchanges,  by  "selling  dear,"  as  we  say. 
But  again,  the  sum  of  value  is  not  affected  by  such  exchanges. 
No  part  of  that  proportion  of  the  sum  of  values  which  we 
call  profit  is  created  by  exchange. 

"Buying  cheap  and  selling  dear"  is  therefore  an  explana- 
tion of  the  gains  to  the  capitalist  class  as  a  whole.  And  that 
is  the  essence  of  our  problem.  We  are  not  interested  in  the 
fact  that  A  makes  an  exchange  with  B  and  that  A  gains 
what  B  loses,  any  more  than  we  are  in  the  fact  that  a  pick- 
pocket takes  another  man's  money.  In  that  case,  also,  one 
gains  and  the  other  loses;  but  there  has  been  no  addition  to 
the  sum  of  existent  values.  Individual  members  of  the 
capitalist  class  do  lose,  and  their  losses  may,  and  often  do 
represent  the  gains  of  other  individuals  in  that  class,  but  the 
capitalist  class  gains  as  a  whole,  and  it  is  the  sum  of  that 
gain  which  we  must  explain. 

How  wealth  is  produced:  Profits  are  a  part  of  the  total 
wealth  of  society.  That  wealth  is  the  product  of  a  union 
of  labor  and  the  forces  of  nature.  The  phrase,  "Labor  is  the 
source  of  all  wealth"  is  occasionally  met  with  in  a  certain 
type  of  Socialist  literature,  but  it  is  no  part  of  Socialist 
theory.  In  particular,  it  is  not  a  part  of  the  Marxian  theory 
of  surplus-value  as  many  writers  suppose.  On  the  contrary, 
Marx  takes  particular  care  to  make  it  clear  that  he  does  not 
regard  labor  as  the  sole  source  of  wealth.  He  quotes  with 
approval  the  words  of  Petty  that  "Labor  is  the  father  and 
earth  the  mother  of  all  wealth."  He  no  more  concerns 
himself  with  the  exact  share  of  each  of  these  agents  in  pro- 
duction than  we  concern  ourselves  with  the  exact  share  of 
each  parent  in  the  life  of  a  child.1  What  he  does  contend 

144  The  use-values  .  .  .  i.e.  the  bodies  of  commodities,  are  combina- 
tions of  two  elements — matter  and  labor.  If  we  take  away  the  useful 


SURPLUS-VALUE  145 

is  that  labor  is  the  source  of  all  economic  value.  When 
critics  assail  the  Marxian  theory  on  the  ground  that  it  makes 
labor  the  sole  source  of  wealth,  they  prove  their  ignorance 
of  Marx  and  their  inability  to  distinguish  between  wealth, 
consumption  goods,  and  their  value — an  abstract  quality. 

The  nature  of  capital:  It  is  one  of  the  characteristics  of 
"those  societies  in  which  the  capitalist  mode  of  production 
prevails"  that  the  laborers  do  not  own  the  means  of  pro- 
duction, the  land,  tools,  machinery,  factories  and  raw  mate- 
rials. Machine  production  upon  a  large  scale  makes  it 
impossible  for  the  individual  laborer  to  own  these  things. 
Industrial  evolution  has  separated  the  laborer  from  the 
ownership  of  the  material  requisites  of  production.  The 
ownership  of  these  things  by  others  than  the  actual  users  of 
them  is  the  essence  of  the  class  division  of  capitalist  society. 

Capital,  therefore,  is  not  to  be  defined  simply  as  "wealth 
that  is  used  to  produce  more  wealth."  It  is  all  that  and 
something  more.  It  involves  the  social  relation  of  produc- 
tion. Robinson  Crusoe's  spade  and  the  familiar  Indian's 
bow  and  arrow  used  to  illustrate  capital  in  ordinary  economic 
discussion  do  not  constitute  capital  at  all  as  the  Socialist 
uses  the  word.  Wealth  used  to  produce  more  wealth  under 
certain  conditions  is  capital.  Under  other  conditions  it  is 
not  capital.  Just  as  bricks  do  not  constitute  a  house  except 
when  they  bear  a  certain  relation  to  each  other,  or  as  a 
negro  is  only  a  slave  tinder  certain  conditions,  though  he  is 
always  a  negro,  so  a  machine  is  only  capital  under  certain 
conditions.  The  concept  of  capital  is  inseparable  from  the 
fundamental  concept  of  capitalist  production,  namely,  pro- 
duction and  exchange  for  profit.  Capital  is  wealth  that  is 
us_ed  for  the  production  of  more  wealth  with  a  view  to  the 
realization  of  profit  through  its  exchange.  This  is  what 
"  the  Socialists  mean  when  they  say  that  capital  is  a  "social 
relation  expressed  through  the  medium  of  things."  And 

labor  expended  upon  them,  a  material  substratum  is  always  left,  which 
is  furnished  by  Nature  without  the  help  of  man.  The  latter  can  work 
only  as  Nature  does,  that  is,  by  changing  the  form  of  matter.  Nay, 
more,  in  this  work  of  changing  the  form  he  is  constantly  helped  by 
natural  forces.  We  see,  then,  that  labor  is  not  the  only  source  of 
material  wealth,  of  use-values  produced  by  labor.  As  William  Petty 
puts  it,  labor  is  its  father  and  the  earth  is  its  mother." — Karl  Marx, 
Capital,  Vol.  I,  chap,  i,  p.  50.  (Kerr  edition.) 


146  ELEMENTS   OF   SOCIALISM 

when  Socialists  speak  of  the  "abolition  of  capital,"  it  may 
be  added,  they  speak  only  of  the  abolition  of  that  relation, 
not  of  the  material  things. 

Let  us  look  briefly  at  the  special  form  of  social  relation- 
ship between  the  capitalist  and  the  laborer  which  results 
from  the  ownership  by  the  former  of  the  means  of  production. 
The  capitalist  wants  to  unite  the  productive  power  of  the 
laborer  to  the  means  of  production  which  he  owns  in  order 
that  he  may  make  profit  out  of  the  result  of  the  union. 
The  laborer,  on  the  other  hand,  must  use  the  means  of 
production  which  the  capitalist  owns  if  he  is  to  produce 
wealth  at  all,  and  unless  he  does  produce  wealth  he  cannot 
live.  He  cannot  buy  the  means  of  production  from  the 
capitalist.  The  only  thing  open  to  him  is  to  sell  that  which 
he  has  which  the  capitalist  is  anxious  to  buy,  namely,  his 
laboring  power,  his  capacity  to  produce  new  value. 

Labor-power  is  a  commodity:  We  come  now  to  a  rather 
startling  proposition,  that  the  labor-power  which  the 
capitalist  buys  is  a  commodity  subject  to  the  same  laws  as 
all  other  commodities.  To  class  human  labor-power  with 
pig-iron  as  a  commodity  may  at  first  seem  rather  fantastic, 
but  it  is  by  no  means  an  unwarranted  classification.  .To  be 
a  commodity  labor-power  must  have  three  qualites:  ^f) 
It  must  possess  use-value;  (2)  it  must  possess  exchange- 
value;  (3)  its  value  must  be  determined  by  the  amount  of 
abstract  social  labor  which  is  represents,  the  socially  neces- 
sary labor  which  it  embodies. 

That  labor-power  possesses  the  first  of  these  qualities 
needs  no  demonstration.  Its  use-value  is  obvious.  It  is 
also  evident  that  it  has  exchange  value.  It  is  salable. 
We  speak  of  the  "labor  market"  as  freely  and  naturally  as 
we  speak  of  the  "wheat  market."  Or  we  speak  of  labor  being 
"cheap"  or  "dear"  just  as  we  do  in  the  case  of  ordinary 
commodities.  The  price  of  labor,  wages,  like  the  price  of 
all  other  commodities,  fluctuates.  It  may  be  temporarily 
lowered  by  the  preponderance  of  supply  over  demand,  or 
elevated  by  the  increase  of  demand  over  supply.  It  may  be 
made  the  subject  of  monopoly  in  certain  cases,  just  as  the 
prices  of  other  commodities  may  be  made  the  subject  of 
monopoly.  So  far,  then,  the  analogy  holds  good.  But 
can  we  say  that  the  value  of  labor-power  is  determined  by 


SURPLUS-VALUE  147 

the  amount  of  socially  necessary  labor-power  it  repre- 
sents? 

Ricardo  held  that  the  natural  price  of  labor  depends  on 
"the  price  of  the  food,  necessaries,  and  conveniences  required 
for  the  support  of  the  laborer  and  his  family,"  and  that  as 
the  price  of  these  things  rises  or  falls  so  will  wages  rise  and 
fall.1  From  this  principle  Lassalle  developed  his  famous 
"^Hron  law  of  wages"  which  greatly  influenced  the  Socialist 
propaganda.  But  while  wages  do  tend  always  to  approximate 
the  cost  of  the  subsistence  of  the  workers  and  their  families 
in  any  given  time  and  place,  under  the  conditions  and  accord- 
ing to  the  standard  of  living  generally  prevailing,  there  are 
many  other  factors  to  be  considered.  As  Marx  points  out,* 
the  law  is  much  more  elastic  in  its  operation  than  Lassalle 
supposed.  The  living  commodity  is  not  a  dead  thing.  First 
of  all,  the  fluctuations  of  price  caused  by  the  interaction  of 
supply  and  demand  are  very  much  more  important  than 
Lassalle's  "iron  law"  implies.  Second,  "the  standard  of 
living"  is  a  very  elastic  term,  and  varies  according  to  occupa- 
tional groups,  in  different  localities  according  to  traditional 
influences,  according  to  race  and  nationality,  and  to  the 
general  advancement  of  culture  and  the  state  of  political 
development,  expressing  themselves  in  legislation  for  com- 
pulsory education,  sanitary  reforms,  and  other  things  which 
raise  the  standard  of  living.  Finally  by  organization  the 
workers  may  and  do  materially  improve  their  standards  of 
living. 

Wherein  labor-power  differs  from  other  commodities: 
Within  the  limits  indicated,  labor-power  is  a  commodity 
like  any  other.  But  there  are  important  respects  in  which 
it  differs  from  every  other  commodity.  In  the  first  place, 
"labor-power  is  not  something  apart  from  men,  but  is 
inseparable  from,  and  closely  bound  up  with,  the  lives  of 
human  beings.  Beneath  its  price  are  psychological,  physio- 
logical and  historical  conditions  that  do  not  affect  other 
wares,  and  which  introduce  an  element  of  permanence  into 
money  wages  greater  than  exists  in  regard  to  other  goods." 3 

1  Ricardo,  Principles  of  Political  Economy  and  Taxation,  chap.  v.. 
§35. 

2  Cf .,  Value,  Price  and  Profit,  by  Karl  Marx,  chap.  xiv. 
8  The  Road  to  Power,  by  Karl  Kautsky,  p.  104. 


148  ELEMENTS   OF  SOCIALISM 

Wages  do  not  respond  freely  to  fluctuations  in  the  prices  of 
the  goods  which  enter  into  the  laborer's  standard  of  living 
for  the  reasons  already  indicated.  When  prices  rise,  wages 
are  slow  to  follow.  And  even  when  prices  fall,  wages,  while 
they  must  ultimately  follow,  do  not  immediately  fall. 
Moreover,  they  do  not  fall  at  the  same  rate  as  prices  in 
general. 

The  laborer  is  in  a  peculiar  position.  He  enters  the  labor 
market  as  a  seller  of  his  one  commodity,  labor-power.  That 
commodity  is  not  a  thing  apart  from  himself  as  are  all  other 
wares,  but  is  a  part  of  himself.  Having  sold  his  labor- 
power,  he  must  go  into  the  goods  market  and  become  a 
buyer  pure  and  simple.  His  interest  as  a  consumer  is  to  buy 
cheap.  Low  prices  are  advantageous;  high  prices  are  dis- 
advantageous. Having  sold  his  labor-power  to  the  capital- 
ist, he  confronts  the  product  of  that  labor  power  in  the 
goods  market  as  a  ware  offered  for  sale  by  the  capitalist 
who  appeared  in  the  labor  market  as  a  buyer  of  labor- 
power,  but  now  appears  as  a  seller  of  labor  product. 

These  differences  between  labor-power  and  all  other  com- 
modities are  all  incidental  to  a  greater  difference.  Labor- 
power  is  used  up  in  the  production  of  other  commodities, 
embodied  in  them  as  it  were.  In  this  respect  it  resembles 
all  other  commodities  which,  as  raw  materials,  are  similarly 
used  up.  But  labor  creates  new  value  in  the  process  of  being 
used  up,  and  this  quality  no  other  commodity  has.  In  the 
manufacture  of  shoes,  for  example,  machinery,  leather  and 
labor-power  are  used.  The  leather  is  used  up,  transformed, 
but  it  does  not  add  to  its  own  value.  Machinery  is  used 
up  to  a  degree,  but  it  does  not  add  to  its  own  value.  It 
loses  a  part  of  its  value  through  wear  and  tear  and  adds  it 
to  the  value  of  the  raw  material,  to  reappear  in  the  value  of 
the  product,  shoes.  But  labor-power  does  increase  its  own 
value  in  the  process  of  being  consumed. 

Surplus-value:  For  the  commodity  he  sells  the  laborer 
receives  its  value,  measured  by  the  price-form,  wages.  As 
we  have  seen,  his  commodity  is  a  somewhat  peculiar  one 
and  its  price  laws  are  in  some  important  respects  peculiar 
to  itself.  But  for  the  purpose  of  illustration  we  will  disregard 
these  peculiarities  and  assume  that  the  laborer  receives  the 
full  value  of  his  commodity,  the  social  labor  cost  of  its  pro- 


SURPLUS-VALUE  149 

duction.  When  purchased  by  the  capitalist,  this  commodity, 
like  every  other,  belongs  to  the  purchaser.  Its  use-value 
belongs  to  him,  and  no  more  belongs  to  the  laborer  who  sold 
it  than  the  sugar  a  grocer  sells  belongs  to  him  after  the  sale. 
The  laborer  has  received  the  exchange-value  of  his  commodity 
in  return  for  its  use-value.  Now,  in  being  used  up,  the  power 
to  labor  which  the  laborer  sells  and  the  capitalist  buys  will 
produce  more  than  the  equivalent  of  its  own  value.  It  may 
produce  twice  the  equivalent  of  its  own  cost  of  production, 
twice  its  own  value  and  price — the  two  terms  being  in  this 
case  identical.  This  is  the  central  idea  of  the  Marxian  theory 
of  surplus-value. 

How  surplus-value  is  produced:  The  capitalist  buys  the 
labor-power  of  a  given  number  of  laborers  for  ten  hours  a 
day.  He  pays  the  market  price,  wages,  for  this  labor-power 
and  has  it  used  up — just  as  raw  materials  are  used  up — to 
produce  other  commodities  for  sale.  When  they  have  worked 
five  hours,  let  us  say,  the  workers  have  produced  value 
equivalent  to  their  wages.  If  they  stopped  at  that  point, 
the  capitalist  would  find  added  to  the  raw  materials  by  labor- 
power  value  equal  to  the  price  paid  for  the  labor-power. 
But  the  workers  do  not  stop  at  this  point.  They  go  on 
working  for  five  hours  more,  creating  further  value.  These 
figures  are,  of  course,  arbitrarily  chosen  to  illustrate  a  prin- 
ciple. The  principle  itself  would  not  be  effected  if  we 
assumed  the  working  day  to  be  twelve  hours  and  further 
assumed  that  it  required  ten  hours  to  produce  the  value  of 
the  labor-power.  According  to  our  illustration,  then,  each 
worker  gives  the  product  of  ten  hours'  labor  in  return  for  the 
product  of  five.  This  balance  represents  the  surplus-value 
(mehrwerth)  of  the  capitalist. 

Such  is  the  theory.  We  may  further  illustrate  it  by  the 
following  example:  Assume  the  average  cost  of  subsistence 
for  a  laborer  and  his  family  in  a  given  time  and  place  to  be 
$1.00  a  day;  that  wages  are  equal  to  the  cost  of  subsistence, 
namely,  $1.00  per  day,  and  that  it  takes,  on  an  average, 
five  hours'  labor  to  produce  that  amount  in  value.  A  manu- 
facturer employs  1,000  hands  at  $1.00  per  day  per  man, 
and  the  length  of  the  working  day  is  ten  hours.  The  daily 
cost  of  labor-power  is,  therefore,  $1,000.00.  The  value  of 
raw  materials  used  is  also  $1,000.00.  The  value  of  machinery 


150  ELEMENTS   OF  SOCIALISM 

and  plant  is  depreciated  to  the  extent  of  $100.00  a  day.  At 
the  end  of  ten  hours  it  is  found  that  the  total  values  resulting 
from  the  combination  of  these  is  greater  than  the  sum  of 
all  three  by  a  sum  exactly  equal  to  the  value  of  the  raw 
materials  or  that  of  the  labor-power.  The  capitalist 
paid, — 

For  labor-power $1,000.00 

For  raw  materials 1,000.00 

For  repairs,  replacement  of  machinery,  etc . . .          100.00 

$2,100.00 

He  receives  for  the  gross  product 3,100.00 

The  surplus-value  is,  therefore 1,000.00 

It  is  obvious  that  this  increase  of  value  does  not  come  into 
being  of  itself.  It  can  only  have  one  origin,  in  the  living 
force,  labor-power.  Just  as  the  simplest  concept  of  wealth 
involves  the  act  of  transforming  some  natural  object  by 
human  effort,  so  here  human  effort  has  been  transforming 
raw  materials  and  creating  new  values. 

Division  of  surplus-value:  The  surplus-value  created  by 
the  laborers  does  not  of  necessity  all  belong  to  the  capitalist. 
He  may  and  generally  does  have  to  divide  it  with  others, 
landowners,  money-lenders,  and  so  on.  The  sum  total  of 
surplus-value  created  by  the  laborers  constitutes  the  fund 
from  which  all  rents,  interests  and  profits  must  be  paid. 
It  is  from  this  fund,  too,  that  capital  is  replenished  and 
increased,  including  the  capitals  necessary  to  the  conquest 
and  development  of  foreign  markets.  The  division  of  the 
surplus-value  sometimes  causes  much  strife  as,  for  example, 
when  landlords  insist  upon  getting  the  lion's  share  and  are 
bitterly  opposed  by  the  capitalists. 

The  workers  have  little  interest  in  these  struggles  over  the 
division  of  the  surplus-value  they  create,  except  in  so  far 
as  the  struggles  give  rise  to  political  or  other  conditions 
which  enable  the  workers  to  improve  their  own  conditions 
by  taking  advantage  of  the  divisions  in  the  ranks  of  the 
exploiting  class.  It  does  not  matter  to  the  workers  whether 
more  or  less  of  the  surplus-value  goes  to  a  particular  section 
of  the  exploiting  class.  Their  interest  is  to  give  a  minimum 
of  surplus-value,  to  be  exploited  as  little  as  possible.  On 
the  other  hand,  it  is  to  the  interest  of  the  entire  class  of 


SURPLUS-VALUE  151 

those  who  share  the  surplus-value  to  resist  the  efforts  of  the 
workers  to  reduce  its  amount,  and  to  force  them  to  give 
up  as  much  as  possible.  This  is  the  casus  belli  of  industrial 
conflict,  the  motive  of  the  class  war.  The  cause  of  class 
antagonisms  is  surplus-value,  not  the  speeches  and  writings 
of  "agitators";  not  the  labor  unions.  These  are  effects,  not 
causes. 

Rate  of  surplus-value  and  rate  of  profit :  As  we  have  seen, 
of  the  total  mass  of  capital  which  the  capitalist  advances, 
only  one  portion,  the  amount  paid  for  labor-power,  adds  to 
its  own  value  and  produces  an  excess,  or  surplus- value.  That 
portion  of  the  capital  which  is  expended  on  raw  materials 
and  other  means  of  production  does  not  change  the  magnitude 
of  its  own  value  in  this  manner.  Therefore  Marx  calls  the 
former  portion  variable  capital,  and  the  latter  portion 
constant  capital.  In  our  illustration  we  assumed  the  amount 
of  surplus-value  to  be  exactly  equal  to  the  variable  capital. 
In  the  language  of  Marx,  the  ratio  of  surplus-value  to 
variable  capital  is  100  per  cent,  in  this  case.  This  expresses 
the  degree  of  the  exploitation  of  the  workers.  That  is,  they 
are  exploited  at  the  rate  of  100  per  cent,  both  as  regards 
value  and  number  of  hours  of  labor.  We  are  not  concerned 
with  the  actual  rate  of  surplus-value,  but  with  the  illustra- 
tion of  the  principle. 

Now,  it  will  be  observed  that  the  foregoing  ratio  is  by  no 
means  the  ratio  of  profit.  In  other  words,  rate  of  surplus- 
value  and  rate  of  profit  are  wholly  different  conceptions, 
though  they  are  frequently  confused  with  one  another.  To 
find  the  rate  of  profit  we  must  consider  the  total  capital, 
constant  as  well  as  variable.  Thus,  the  ratio  of  surplus- 
value  to  variable  capital  is  100  per  cent,  but  the  ratio  of 
surplus-value  to  the  whole  capital  is  47.6  per  cent.  This  last 
gives  the  rate  of  profit.  Let  us  now  suppose  that,  instead 
of  the  price  of  labor-power  being  fixed  at  its  proper  value, 
it  falls  considerably  below  it,  as  a  result  of  an  excessive 
supply.  The  capitalist  now  pays  80  cents  per  day  instead 
of  $1.00  as  before.  The  variable  capital  will  now  be  $800.00 
instead  of  $1,000.00  as  formerly.  The  value  of  the  product 
at  the  end  of  the  day  will  be  the  same.  The  rate  of  surplus- 
value — the  degree  of  exploitation — will  rise,  and  so  will  the 
rate  of  profit.  The  capitalist  now  pays, 


152  ELEMENTS   OF  SOCIALISM 

For  labor-power $800.00 

For  raw  materials 1,000.00 

For  repairs,  replacement  of  machinery,  etc 100.00 

$1,900.00 

He  receives  for  the  gross  product 3,100.00 

The  surplus-value  is,  therefore 1,200.00 

Thus,  the  rate  of  exploitation,  that  is,  the  ratio  of  surplus- 
value  to  variable  capital,  rises  from  100  per  cent  to  150  per 
cent,  while  the  rate  of  profit,  the  ratio  of  surplus-value  to 
the  total  capital,  rises  from  47.6  per  cent  to  63.1  per  cent. 
Expressed  in  hours  of  labor  time  the  workers  now  give  up 
six  hours  above  the  number  required  to  replace  their  wages 
instead  of  five  hours  as  before. 

It  may  happen,  however,  that  the  increase  in  the  rate  of 
surplus-value  will  be  accompanied  by  a  decrease  in  the  rate  of 
profit.  The  capitalist  is  always  trying  to  cheapen  produc- 
tion by  (a)  lowering  wages,  (b)  lengthening  the  working  day, 
(c)  increasing  the  productivity  of  labor.  To  the  first  two 
methods  there  are  very  obvious  limits — physical  endurance 
of  the  workers,  legislation,  and  so  on.  The  main  energies 
of  capitalist  management  are  directed  to  the  third  method, 
through  better  organization,  improved  machinery,  reduction 
of  wasteful  expenditures,  and  the  like.  Therefore,  there  is 
at  all  times  going  on  a  process  which  Marx  calls  the  changing 
organic  composition  of  capital.  In  other  words,  the  relation 
of  variable  to  constant  capital  changes  from  time  to  time. 
The  portion  of  capital  laid  out  in  wages  decreases,  increased 
production  resulting  without  any  corresponding  increase — 
but  sometimes  even  a  decrease — in  the  number  of  workers 
employed  and  the  total  expenditure  upon  wages.  Thus, 
assume  that  the  capitalist  pays, 

For  labor-power .-. . .        $600.00 

For  raw  materials 1,500.00 

For  repairs,  replacement  of  machinery,  etc 100.00 

$2,200.00 

And  that  he  receives  for  the  gross  product...       3,400.00 
The  surplus-value  is 1,200.00 

The  rate  of  surplus -value  is  now  200  per  cent,  but  the 
rate  of  profit  is  57.2  per  cent. 


SURPLUS-VALUE  153 

Dangers  of  a  too  narrow  interpretation  of  the  theory: 

Many  criticisms  of  the  theory,  including  those  of  the  leading 
members  of  the  Revisionist  school,  are  based  upon  interpreta- 
tions of  the  theory  which  are  too  narrow  and  dogmatic. 
These  criticisms  have  the  same  cardinal  defect  that  vitiates 
some  of  the  expositions  of  Marx's  theories  by  his  dogmatic 
and  unphilosophical  followers.  They  interpret  Marx's 
theoretical  conclusions  too  narrowly  and  in  that  form  attempt 
to  apply  them  to  actual  life.  For  example,  Marx  reasoned 
his  theory  of  value  with  mathematical  method  and  exact- 
ness, but  he  knew  perfectly  well  that  in  actual  life  the  law 
could  not  and  did  not  operate  with  anything  like  the  pre- 
cision and  inflexibility  which  he  employed  in  its  demonstra- 
tion. No  law  ever  does.  He  assumes,  for  the  purpose  of 
elaborating  his  theory,  that  all  commodities  are  sold  at 
their  value,  but  later  on  he  admits  that  such  is  not  the  case, 
that  the  prices  of  commodities  are  usually  either  higher  or 
lower  than  their  value.  But  this  could  not  be  understood  at 
all  except  by  the  aid  of  the  law  of  value.  While  a  narrow 
and  rigid  interpretation  of  the  theory  of  surplus-value  would 
lead  to  the  conclusion  that  the  workers  are  never  exploited 
except  directly  as  producers,  through  wages,  such  an  inter- 
pretation would  be  wholly  unwarranted.  Some  of  the 
doctrinaire  followers  of  Marx  have  so  interpreted  the  theory, 
however,  and  made  it  the  theoretical  basis  for  a  practical 
policy  which  would  prevent  the  Socialist  movement  from 
participating  in  many  reform  movements  of  immediate 
concern  to  the  workers.  But  not  so  Marx.  He  shows  very 
clearly  that  the  workers  are  exploited  as  consumers1  also, 
and  this  secondary  exploitation  tends  to  become  more 
important  with  every  advance  in  the  direction  of  monop- 
oly. 

In  like  manner,  many  of  the  critics  of  the  theory  have  a 
very  much  narrower  conception  of  labor  than  the  Marxian 
theory  justifies,  if  we  consider  the  theory  itself  rather  than 
the  examples  which  Marx  uses  to  illustrate  it.  To  assume 
that  Marx  disregards  the  productivity  of  managerial  labor, 
the  organization  and  direction  of  industry,  is  foolish  in  the 
extreme.  On  the  contrary,  Marx  describes  with  great  clear- 
ness the  development  of  a  special  type  of  "labor,"  that  of 

1  Capital,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  715-716. 


154  ELEMENTS   OF  SOCIALISM 

direction — a  class  whose  "established  and  exclusive  func- 
tion" is  the  work  of  supervision.1  So  far  as  any  person 
shares  in  the  necessary  labor  of  production,  including  in 
the  term  "production"  all  the  processes  involved  in  the 
transformation  of  the  raw  material  into  the  finished  product 
delivered  to  the  consumer,  that  person  is  performing  useful 
labor.  But  the  capitalist,  as  such,  performs  no  labor.  Or, 
to  put  the  matter  more  clearly,  whatever  any  person  receives 
over  and  above  the  value  of  productive  labor  performed, 
is  of  necessity  a  sum  exploited  from  other  people's  labor. 
There  is  no  other  explanation  of  the  phenomena  of  pure 
profit. 

The  theory  does  not  involve  the  ethics  of  distribution: 
One  of  the  most  common  misconceptions  of  the  theory,  a 
misconception  which  has  served  as  the  basis  of  many  crit- 
icisms, is  that  which  regards  it  as  involving  the  ethics  of 
distribution.  The  usual  statement  is  that  the  theory  of 
Marx  leads  to  the  conclusion  that  "All  wealth  is  produced 
by  labor,  and  should,  therefore,  belong  to  labor."  It  is  then 
assumed  that  in  the  Socialist  State  an  ethical  system  of 
distribution  will  be  realized,  based  upon  the  labor-value 
theory,  and  that  each  worker  will  get  approximately  the 
value  of  his  own  labor  product,  minus  his  share  in  the 
necessary  social  charges.  There  is  nothing  in  the  Marxian 
theory  to  support  either  the  statement  or  the  assumption 
based  upon  it.  Marx  nowhere  reasons  that  the  workers 
ought  to  get  the  full  value  of  their  labor.  Indeed,  as  Engels 
points  out,  Marx  opposed  the  earlier  Socialists  of  the  Ricard- 
ian  school  for  confusing  economics  with  ethics.  He  based 
his  whole  argument  for  Socialism,  not  upon  the  right  of 
the  producers,  but  upon  the  impossibility  of  the  capitalist 
system  to  last,  the  inevitability  of  the  development  of 
capitalist  industry  to  the  point  where  the  industrial  and 
legal  forms  of  capitalism  can  no  longer  contain  it.  Marx 
invariably  scoffed  at  the  "ethical  distribution"  idea,  and 
when  the  Gotha  Platform  of  the  German  Socialists  was 
adopted  in  1875  he  was  very  much  incensed,  not  only  because 
he  regarded  its  opening  sentence,  "Labor  produces  all 
wealth,"  as  wrong  in  itself,  but  because  it  seemed  to  him 
to  lead  directly  to  the  old  idea  that  Socialism  must  rest  its 

1  Capital,  Vol.  I,  chap,  xiii;  Vol.  Ill,  chap,  xxiii. 


SURPLUS-VALUE  155 

case  upon  the  right  of  the  producer  to  the  whole  of  his 
product,  instead  of  upon  the  inevitable  breakdown  of  capital- 
ist society.  In  other  words,  Marx  never  took  the  position 
that  Socialism  ought  to  take  the  place  of  capitalism,  because 
the  producers  of  wealth  ought  to  get  the  whole  of  their 
product.  His  position  was  that  Socialism  must  come,  simply 
because  capitalism  could  not  last.  It  would,  of  course,  be 
idle  and  disingenuous  to  deny  that  of  the  actual  propaganda 
of  the  Socialist  movement  no  small  part  consists  of  moral 
protests  against  the  manifest  injustice  of  capitalist  society, 
and  of  arguments  in  favor  of  a  juster  social  system.  But 
these  things  are  not  included  in  the  Marxian  theories.  In  so 
far,  the  Socialist  movement  is  bigger  than  Marx.  Even  if 
his  entire  system  of  philosophy  could  be  destroyed,  the 
inequalities  existing,  the  striking  social  contrasts  of  extreme 
wealth  and  extreme  poverty  co-existent,  the  undeniable  fact 
that  useful  labor  often  brings  only  a  life  of  hardship  while 
luxury  and  ease  are  often  the  portion  of  those  who  do  no 
labor  at  all,  would  undoubtedly  afford  a  basis  for  a  movement 
aiming  at  the  collective  ownership  of  the  means  of  production. 
With  that  we  are  not  concerned  at  present.  The  important 
point  is  that,  according  to  Marx,  the  concentration  of 
capitalism  must  go  on  until  it  bursts  its  shell  and  a  new 
epoch  is  ushered  in. 


156  ELEMENTS   OF  SOCIALISM 


SUMMARY 

1.  The  sole  motive  of  capitalist  enterprise  is  the  realization  of  a 
profit  from  the  sale  of  goods. 

2.  Labor  is  not  the  source  of  all  wealth,  but  it  is  the  source  of  all 
economic  value. 

3.  Capital  is  a  social  relation  expressed  through  the  medium  of 
things  the  possession  of  which  by  the  capitalist  makes  it  necessary  for 
the  laborer  to  sell  his  commodity,  labor-power,  to  the  capitalist. 

4.  The  difference  between  the  total  value  produced  by  labor  and  the 
value  of  the  labor-power  consumed  in  its  production,  is  surplus-value, 
the  rate  of  which  is  the  measure  of  exploitation. 

5.  The  difference  between  the  value  of  the  finished  product  and 
the  total  cost  of  production  is  profit.     The  rate  of  profit  does  not 
necessarily  correspond  to  the  rate  of  surplus-value. 

6.  The  theory  of  surplus-value  does  not  involve  the  ethics  of  dis- 
tribution. 

QUESTIONS 

1.  Discuss  the  relation  of  exchange  to  profit. 

2.  Criticise  the  statement:  "Labor  is  the  source  of  all  wealth." 

3.  Distinguish  between   the   Marxian   and   the   current   economic 
definition  of  capital. 

4.  How  is  the  value  of  labor-power  determined? 

5.  What  is  the  essential  difference  between  labor-power  and  other 
commodities? 

6.  What  is  surplus-value?    How  is  it  produced? 

7.  Explain  the  process  of  the  division  of  surplus-value? 

8.  How  is  the  rate  of  profit  determined? 

9.  What  is  secondary  exploitation? 


LITERATURE 
See  references  at  close  of  preceding  chapter. 


CHAPTER  XIV 

THE   LAW   OF    CONCENTRATION 

The  stages  of  capitalism:  The  period  of  domestic  industry 
in  which,  the  guild  organization  having  broken  down,  the 
mass  of  craftsmen  were  employed  under  the  wage  system 
by  masters  who  were  no  longer  craftsmen  themselves,  may 
be  considered  as  the  first  stage  of  capitalism.  This  period 
was  characterized  by  what  Marx  calls  merchants'  capital — 
capital  invested  in  raw  materials  and  finished  goods  rather 
than  the  tools  of  production.  In  some  industries  the  massing 
of  large  numbers  of  workers  in  factories  had  already  begun, 
but  they  still  remained  hand  workers. 

The  second  stage  of  capitalism  began  with  the  age  of 
machinery.  Industrial  capital  in  the  various  forms  of 
factories,  machinery,  and  means  of  transportation  became 
more  important  than  merchants'  capital.  Competition 
between  capitalists  on  the  one  hand,  and  between  wage- 
workers  on  the  other,  was  the  rule.  The  policy  of  laissez- 
faire  was  the  accepted  ideal  and  competition  was  regarded 
as  the  life  of  trade. 

The  third  and  last  stage  of  capitalism  is  marked  by  the 
concentration  of  industry  and  the  elimination  of  competition. 
Writing  before  this  stage  had  fairly  opened,  Marx  predicted 
that  competition  would  destroy  itself,  that  the  business  units 
would  continuously  increase  in  magnitude  until  at  last 
monopoly  emerged  from  the  competitive  struggle.  Competi- 
tion being  self-destructive  inevitably  breeds  monopoly. 
This  monopoly  becoming  a  shackle  upon  the  system  of  pro- 
duction which  produced  it,  must  in  turn  give  way  to  some- 
thing else,  namely,  the  socialization  of  industry.  Says 
Marx:  "The  monopoly  of  capital  becomes  a  fetter  upon  the 
mode  of  production,  which  has  sprung  up  and  flourished 
along  with  it,  and  under  it.  Centralization  of  the  means  of 
production  and  socialization  of  labor  at  last  reach  a  point 

157 


158  ELEMENTS   OF  SOCIALISM 

where  they  become  incompatible  with  their  capitalist 
integument.  This  integument  is  burst  asunder.  The  knell 
of  capitalist  private  property  sounds.  The  expropriators  are 
expropriated."1 

Criticism  of  the  theory:  This  view  has  been  generally 
accepted  by  Marx's  followers.  The  disappearance  of  the 
middle  class  and  the  reduction  of  most  of  its  members  to 
the  ranks  of  the  proletariat  have  been  regarded  as  self-evident 
truths  of  Socialism.  But  within  recent  years  the  theory  has 
been  subject  to  a  good  deal  of  criticism,  both  from  within 
and  without  the  Socialist  movement.  Many  of  the  leading 
Socialists  in  Europe  and  America  have  participated  in  the 
discussion,  and  while  the  results  of  the  discussion  have 
been  rather  inconclusive  thus  far,  it  is  now  very  generally 
admitted  that  the  middle  class  is  not  disappearing  in  the 
manner  and  at  the  rate  which  Marx  anticipated;  that  petty 
industries  have  not  all  been  swept  away;  that  small  retail 
establishments  still  persist,  and,  in  some  cases,  increase  in 
number  and  that  concentration  in  agriculture  does  not 
manifest  itself  in  the  form  of  immense  bonanza  farms  swal- 
lowing up  all  the  smaller  farms. 

Bernstein  points  out  that  the  number  of  share-holders 
in  industrial  corporations  is  increasing,  and  that  in  England 
in  1898  there  were  more  than  a  million  share-holders.  The 
share-holders  in  the  Manchester  Canal  amount  in  round 
numbers  to  40,000,  and  in  Lipton's  there  are  more  than 
74,000  share-holders.  The  number  of  taxable  incomes  is 
increasing,  and  the  increase  is  most  noticeable  in  the  number 
of  moderate  incomes.  A  similar  thing  is  seen  in  Germany. 
In  Prussia  the  population  doubled  in  the  period  1854-1898, 
but  the  number  of  persons  with  incomes  of  more  than 
$750.00  a  year  increased  sevenfold.  Similar  figures  are 
quoted  from  other  countries  to  show  that,  judging  by  income 
standards,  the  number  of  persons  in  the  middle  class  is  on 
the  increase. 

Persistence  of  small  industrial  units :  Critics  of  the  theory 
also  point  to  the  persistence  of  petty  industrial  establish- 
ments and  small  retail  stores  in  support  of  their  position. 
That  a  great  many  such  establishments  and  stores  do  exist 
is  undeniable.  There  are  many  trades  and  branches  of 

1  Capital,  Vol.  I,  p.  837. 


THE   LAW   OF   CONCENTRATION 


159 


trades  which  can  be  carried  on  just  as  cheaply  on  a  small 
scale  as  on  a  large  scale,  or  nearly  so.  This  is  the  case  with 
different  branches  of  wood,  leather,  and  metal  work.  A 
great  deal  of  misunderstanding  exists  upon  this  point.  It 
is  not  denied  that  there  is  an  enormous  development  in  the 
direction  of  larger  industrial  units,  but  that  the  small  fac- 
tories and  workshops  can  and  do  continue  to  exist  in  large 
numbers.  For  example,  if  we  take  the  figures  given  in  the 
reports  of  the  Prussian  census  for  1907,1  we  shall  see  both 
these  facts  very  clearly.  The  figures  refer  to  mercantile  and 
manufacturing  establishments: 


TABLE  III 


ESTABLISHMENTS. 

Numbers. 

Persons  Employed. 

1895. 

1907. 

1895. 

1907. 

Quite  Small  (1  person  only)  

1,029,954 
593,884 
108,800 
10,127 
380 
191 

955,707 
767,200 
154,330 
17,287 
602 
371 

1,029,954 
1,638,205 
1,390,745 
1,217,085 
261,507 
333,585 

955,707 
2,038,236 
2,109,164 
2,095,065 
424,587 
710,253 

Very  Great  (501-1000  persons)  ...    . 

Giant  (1001  persona  and  over)  

1,743,336 

1,895,497 

5,876,083 

8,332,912 

The  decrease  in  the  number  of  establishments  classified  as 
"quite  small"  indicates  nothing  except  the  passing  out  of 
existence  of  a  percentage  of  household  industries.  The 
increase  in  the  "small"  and  "medium"  establishments  is 
quite  as  marked  and  as  remarkable  as  the  increase  in  the 
"very  great"  and  "giant"  establishments.  The  figures  do 
indicate  a  very  real  tendency  to  concentration,  however. 
While  the  number  of  establishments  increased  only  8.73 
per  cent  the  number  of  persons  employed  increased  41.81 
per  cent. 

American  statistics :  Far  more  important  than  increase  or 
decrease  of  the  number  of  units  is  their  relative  significance 

JThe  figures  are  taken  from  Bernstein's  Evolutionary  Socialism, 
p.  57.  They  appeared  originally  in  this  form  in  Die  Neue  Zeit,  XV.  2, 
p.  597. 


160 


ELEMENTS   OF   SOCIALISM 


in  the  total  production.  This  phase  of  the  subject  has  been 
very  ably  and  comprehensively  dealt  with  by  Mr.  Lucien 
Sanial,  a  well-known  Socialist  statistician.  He  takes  twenty- 
seven  of  the  most  typical  manufacturing  industries  and  com- 
pares the  number  of  establishments,  number  of  persons  em- 
ployed and  amount  of  capital  invested  in  the  years  1880, 
1890  and  1905.  He  shows  that  there  was  a  decrease  in  the 
number  of  establishments  from  1880  to  1905  of  35.3  per  cent, 
accompanied  by  an  increase  in  the  number  of  persons 
employed  of  60.2  per  cent,  while  the  capital  invested  in  the 
smaller  number  of  establishments  was  262.6  per  cent  greater 
than  the  capital  invested  in  the  smaller  number. 

TABLE  IV 


YEAR. 

Number  of 
Establishments. 

Number  of 
Workers. 

Capital. 

1880.  .  . 

63,233 

1,080,200 

$1,276,600,000 

1890  

51,912 

1,611,000 

3,324,500,000 

1905  

44,142 

1,731,500 

4,628,800,000 

In  another  table  Mr.  Sanial  takes  forty-seven  industries. 
These  forty-seven  industries  comprised  29,800  establish- 
ments in  1900.  By  1905  the  number  had  fallen  to  26,182. 
Side  by  side  with  this  decrease  in  the  number  of  establish- 
ments there  was  a  marked  increase  in  the  amount  of  capital 
invested,  which  was  $1,005,400,000  in  1900,  and  $1,339,- 
500,000  in  1905.  In  the  same  five  years  the  number  of 
workers  increased  only  from  618,000  to  749,000.  Here, 
again,  in  this  group  of  the  smaller  industries  we  find  the  same 
evidences  of  concentration — fewer  establishments,  large 
increase  of  capitals  and  an  increase  in  the  number  of  wage- 
earners  which  is  not  equal  to  the  increase  in  capitalization. 

But  even  more  significant  than  any  of  these  figures  are 
those  which  show  the  relative  portion  of  the  total  volume 
of  manufacture  for  which  the  small  establishments  are 
responsible.  Table  No.  IV  shows  that  the  two  largest  classes 
of  establishments  number  only  24,163,  11.2  per  cent  of  the 
total  number.  But  they  represent  81.5  per  cent  of  the  total 
capital,  $10,334,000,000  and  employ  71.6  per  cent  of  all  the 
wage-workers  in  manufacturing  industries. 


THE   LAW   OF   CONCENTRATION 


161 


TABLE  V 
MANUFACTURING  ESTABLISHMENTS,  1905 » 


CAPITALS. 

Num- 
ber. 

Per 
Cent. 

Total 
Capital. 

Per 

Cent. 

Number  of 
Workers. 

Per 

Cent. 

Less  than  $5,000  

71,162 

32.9 

$165,300,000 

1.3 

106,300 

1.9 

$5  000  to  $20  000 

72,806 

33  7 

531,100,000 

4.2 

419  600 

7  7 

$20,000  to  $100,000  
$100,000  to  $1,000,000..  . 
Over  $1,000,000  

48,144 
22,281 
1,882 

22.2 
10.3 
0.9 

1,655,800,000 
5,551,700,000 
4,782,300,000 

13.0 
43.8 
37.7 

1,027,700 
2,537,550 
1,379,150 

18.8 
46.4 
25  2 

These  figures  conclusively  prove  that  industrial  concentra- 
tion is  an  indisputable  fact,  so  far  as  the  United  States  is 
concerned  at  least.  Here,  as  in  Europe,  numerous  petty 
industrial  establishments  continue  to  exist,  but  their  influence 
is  relatively  insignificant.  The  above  table  shows  that  the 
establishments  capitalized  at  less  than  $5,000.00  constitute 
32.9  per  cent  of  the  whole  number  of  establishments,  but 
represent  only  1.3  per  cent  of  the  total  capital  and  1.9  per 
cent  of  the  total  number  of  wage-workers  employed.  This 
process  is  not  confined  to  the  United  States,  but  goes  on  in 
every  industrial  nation. 

The  persistence  of  petty  industries  is  unimportant:  From 
the  Socialist  point  of  view  the  persistence  of  small  industrial 
enterprises  is  not  only  quite  unimportant,  but  is,  for  a  long 
time  to  come  at  least,  inevitable.  They  may  even  continue 
to  exist  under  a  Socialist  regime.  The  preparedness  of 
society  for  Socialism,  for  social  ownership  and  control,  is 
not  to  be  determined  by  the  number  of  little  industries  and 
business  establishments  that  still  remain,  but  rather  by  the 
number  of  great  ones  which  exist.  Karl  Kautsky  argues 
this  very  ably.  The  ripeness  of  society  for  Socialism  is  not 
to  be  disproved  by  the  number  of  wrecks  and  ruins  which 
abound.  "Without  a  developed  great  industry,  Socialism 
is  impossible,"  says  Kautsky.  "Where,  however,  a  great 
industry  exists  to  a  considerable  degree,  it  is  easy  for  a 
Socialist  society  to  concentrate  production,  and  to  quickly  rid 
itself  of  the  little  industry."' 

While  some  petty  industrial  and  business  establishments 

1  The  table  is  quoted  from  Socialism  Inevitable,  by  Gaylord  Wilshire, 
p.  326. 

'Kautsky,  The  Social  Revolution,  p.  144. 


162  ELEMENTS   OF  SOCIALISM 

undoubtedly  do  exist,  and  even  increase  in  number,  the 
increase  of  large  industrial  establishments  employing  many 
more  workers  and  much  larger  capitals  is  much  greater. 
The  same  thing  is  true  of  the  retail  trades.  Furthermore, 
these  petty  industries  are  very  transient  and  unstable,  being 
absorbed  or  crushed  out  of  existence  as  soon  as  they  get 
big  enough  to  be  worthy  of  attention  on  the  part  of  the  power- 
ful industrial  corporations,  either  as  competitors  to  be  feared 
or  as  desirable  tributaries.  So  long  as  they  simply  maintain 
their  owners  at  or  near  the  average  wage-earner's  standard 
of  life  they  pass  unnoticed,  but  once  they  manifest  signs  of 
becoming  prosperous  and  potentially  dangerous  as  competi- 
tors they  are  either  absorbed  or  relentlessly  crushed.  The 
small  corner  drug  store  may  exist  as  an  individual  enterprise, 
but  generally  it  can  only  do  so  if  its  "proprietor"  consents  to 
become  virtually  an  agent  for  some  great  corporation.  If  he 
refuses,  he  is  very  likely  to  find  himself  matched  against  a 
competitor  who  can  ruin  him.  In  all  our  large  cities  to-day 
there  are  drug  stores,  cigar  stores,  restaurants,  saloons, 
grocery  stores,  and  so  on,  which  are  owned  by  great  corpora- 
tions having  branch  establishments  all  over  the  country. 

Concentration  of  control:  We  must  be  careful  to  recognize 
the  fact  that  concentration  of  control  may  be  just  as  import- 
ant as  concentration  in  industry.  It  may  be  true  that  75,000 
stock-holders  own  stock  in  the  Pennsylvania  Railroad,  but 
the  influence  of  the  stock-holder  is  negligible,  and  the  power 
is  as  effectively  concentrated  in  the  hands  of  a  few  men  as 
though  they  owned  every  share  of  the  stock.  This  concentra- 
tion of  control  in  the  hands  of  a  few  is  more  important  than 
is  generally  realized  in  the  discussion  of  the  subject  of  con- 
centration. It  enables  the  operation  of  industry  to  be  carried 
on  for  the  benefit  of  a  class,  and  so  adds  stability  to  class  rule. 

Concentration  in  agriculture:  The  most  damaging  criti- 
cisms of  the  theory  are  those  directed  against  its  application 
to  agriculture.  Marx  conceived  the  general  process  of  indus- 
trial development,  including  the  more  or  less  rapid  extinction 
of  petty  production,  to  be  repeated  in  agricultural  industry. 
He  regarded  the  small  farm  as  being  incompatible  with  the 
development  of  a  really  rational  agriculture,  just  as  the  small 
workshop  was  incompatible  with  really  rational  production,1 

»Cf.,  Capital,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  724,938-939,  etc. 


THE  LAW  OF  CONCENTRATION  163 

that  is,  production  in  the  most  efficient  manner.  Ration- 
alizing agriculture  and  rendering  it  capable  of  being  conducted 
upon  a  gigantic  scale  seemed  to  Marx  to  be  an  inevitable 
result  of  capitalistic  development.  The  advance  of  agricul- 
tural chemistry  and  the  invention  of  power  machinery  to 
take  the  place  of  most  of  the  cumbrous  and  slow  hand  labor 
of  the  farm  implied,  he  believed,  the  practical  extinction  of 
the  small  farm  through  the  old  method  of  big  fish  eat  little 
fish,  numerous  small  farm  units  being  concentrated  into  a 
few  large  ones,  operated  by  capitalists. 

For  a  few  years  it  seemed  as  if  this  prediction  was  being 
rapidly  fulfilled,  especially  in  the  United  States  through  the 
great  "bonanza  farms."  But  in  recent  years  there  has  been 
a  marked  tendency  in  the  opposite  direction,  both  in  this 
country  and  in  Europe.  The  number  of  farms  is  not  decreas- 
ing, but  increasing;  there  is  no  increase  in  the  average  farm 
acreage  to  suggest  the  absorption  of  smaller  farm  units 
by  larger  ones,  but  a  decrease.  As  we  have  seen  in  Chapter 
II,  the  increase  in  the  number  of  small  farms  is  accompanied 
by  a  decrease  in  the  percentage  of  farm  operators  who  own 
their  own  farms.  Hence,  in  the  discussion  of  the  subject, 
the  critics  of  Marx  and  those  of  his  disciples  who  cling  to 
the  belief  that  the  theory  of  concentration  holds  equally 
good  in  agriculture  and  manufacture  rely  upon  the  same  set 
of  figures.  One  side  points  to  the  increase  in  the  number 
of  farms,  while  the  other  side  points  to  the  decrease  in  the 
proportion  of  free  and  unencumbered  ownerships. 

Concerning  the  actual  ownership  of  the  farms  operated  by 
tenants  we  know  very  little  indeed.  It  is  possible  that  a 
full  investigation  of  the  subject  would  reveal  the  fact  that 
concentration  of  farm  ownership  has  proceeded  much  further 
than  is  commonly  supposed.  The  same  may  be  said  of  farm 
mortgages.  In  1890  the  mortgaged  indebtedness  of  the 
farms  of  the  United  States  was  $1,085,995,960,  a  sum  almost 
equal  to  the  value  of  the  entire  wheat  crop.  Here,  again, 
we  know  very  little  about  the  ownership  of  farm  mortgages. 
That  many  of  the  insurance,  banking  and  trust  companies 
have  large  investments  in  them  we  know,  and  this,  too,  is  a 
phase  of  concentration  of  farm  ownership  which  must  be 
taken  into  account.  Moreover,  as  we  also  noted  in  Chapter 
II,  the  modern  American  farm  is  undergoing  a  great  trans- 


164  ELEMENTS   OF   SOCIALISM 

formation  in  that  many  of  the  things  formerly  regarded  as 
essential  to  the  farm  are  now  separated  from  it.  Butter- 
making  and  cheese-making  have  largely  passed  from  the 
farm  to  the  factory.  In  other  words,  division  of  labor  and 
the  introduction  of  machinery  have  led  to  the  absorption  of 
many  of  the  functions  of  the  farm  by  capitalistically  owned 
factories.  To  these  considerations  may  be  added  the  increas- 
ing divorce  of  the  farmer  from  the  ownership  of  the  necessary 
equipment  of  the  industry  under  modern  conditions,  includ- 
ing the  grain  elevators,  the  cold  storage  houses,  and  even  the 
railroads. 

Permanence  of  the  small  farm:  A  consideration  of  the 
foregoing  factors  puts  the  subject  of  agricultural  concentra- 
tion in  a  new  light,  and  suggests  that  there  are  processes  of 
concentration  going  on  of  which  Marx  never  dreamed,  and 
which  are  not  obvious.  At  the  same  time,  even  when  those 
things  are  taken  into  account,  it  must  be  admitted  that  the 
concentration  Marx  had  in  mind,  namely,  the  elimination 
of  small  scale  agricultural  production  by  means  of  the  superior 
force  of  production  possible  upon  farms  of  immense  size, 
conducted  upon  capitalist  lines,  is  not  apparent  anywhere. 
The  small  farm,  therefore,  cannot  be  regarded  as  transitory, 
a  relic  of  the  past,  but  must  be  regarded  as  one  of  the  most 
important  factors  in  our  economic  system,  destined  to  con- 
tinue as  such  for  a  long  time  to  come,  perhaps  permanently. 

Concentration  of  wealth:  We  need  only  briefly  consider 
the  concentration  of  wealth.  It  is  a  rather  common  error 
to  confuse  the  concentration  of  wealth  with  the  concentra- 
tion of  capital.  If  all  the  units  in  a  given  industry  were  to 
be  united  in  a  single  industrial  corporation,  that  would  be  a 
perfect  example  of  the  concentration  of  capital.  But  it  is 
not  inconceivable  that  every  one  of  the  owners  of  the  units 
might  have  a  share  in  the  corporation  exactly  equal  to  the 
capital  value  of  his  particular  unit.  There  would  then  be 
no  concentration  of  wealth  as  an  immediate  result  of  the 
concentration  of  the  industry  itself.  That  concentration  of 
wealth  might  later  develop  from  it  is  beside  the  point  of 
discussion. 

The  principal  bearing  of  this  question  upon  Socialist 
theory  is  the  test  it  provides  of  one  of  Marx's  most  famous 
generalizations,  that  the  middle  class  must  disappear  and 


THE  LAW   OF   CONCENTRATION  165 

society  come  to  be  represented  by  two  polar  classes,  the  rich 
capitalist  class  and  the  proletariat.  There  is  probably  no 
subject  of  equal  importance  in  the  whole  realm  of  economic 
discussion  upon  which  it  is  more  difficult  to  get  conclusive 
evidence.  The  principal  data  are  (1)  statistics  of  taxable 
incomes  and  inheritances  in  countries  where  these  are  taxed; 
(2)  the  number  of  savings  bank  deposits;  (3)  statistics 
relating  to  the  number  of  investors  in  industrial  and  com- 
mercial enterprises.  The  inherent  defects  of  all  three  sources 
are  easily  seen  and  universally  admitted.  We  need  only  note 
some  of  the  most  important  defects. 

Defects  in  principal  sources  of  evidence :  With  respect  to 
income  taxes  the  universal  tendency  is  to  understate  the 
amount  of  large  incomes.  It  was  this  tendency  which  once 
caused  a  British  prime  minister  to  declare  that  the  income 
tax  had  made  a  nation  of  perjurers.  The  statistics  of  inher- 
itance taxes  do  not  reveal  all  the  truth,  for  the  reason  that 
where  such  taxes  are  imposed  it  is  a  common  practice  for 
large  land-owners  and  other  property-owners  to  transfer  their 
properties  to  their  heirs  during  their  lifetime,  thus  escaping 
the  tax.  This  has  been  notoriously  the  case  in  England  since 
the  imposition  of  the  so-called  "death  duties."  The  number 
of  savings  banks  deposits  is  of  very  little  value  as  evidence 
in  this  discussion,  because  a  very  large  proportion  of  the  depos- 
its are  made  by  children,  petty  savings.  On  the  other  hand, 
many  business  men  make  it  a  practice  to  place  deposits  in  a 
number  of  savings  banks,  and  their  deposits,  being  relatively 
large,  inflate  the  average  and  destroy  the  value  of  any  average 
of  per  capita  deposits.  Spahr  shows,  for  example,  that  in 
New  York,  while  the  number  of  savings  bank  deposits  was 
more  than  twice  the  total  number  of  families,  two-thirds 
of  the  families  had  no  bank  accounts  at  all,  nor  any  other 
registered  property  whatsoever.1  The  statistics  relating  to 
the  number  of  share-holders  in  corporations  are  equally 
worthless.  We  have  no  means  of  knowing  what  proportion 
of  the  total  number  consists  of  petty  investors,  people  who 
own  one  or  two  shares  in  a  single  company  at  most,  repre- 
senting their  entire  capital,  and  what  proportion  is  made 
up  of  duplications — people  who  are  investors  in  many 

1  The  Present  Distribution  of  Wealth  in  the  United  States,  by  Chaa. 
B.  Spahr,  p.  57. 


166  ELEMENTS   OF  SOCIALISM 

corporations,  and  so  appear  again  and  again  in  the  total 
number. 

Definite  evidence  of  concentration:  But  while  we  cannot 
measure  with  any  degree  of  accuracy  the  concentration 
which  has  taken  place,  there  is  overwhelming  evidence  of  the 
fact  that  it  has  been  considerable.  The  fact  is  hardly  dis- 
puted by  anybody.  While  in  the  United  States  great 
extremes  of  wealth  and  poverty  were  relatively  unknown  in 
the  early  part  of  the  nineteenth  century,  to-day  such  extremes 
are  common,  and  multi-millionaires  and  paupers  are  about 
equally  characteristic  of  our  social  life.  The  most  careful 
investigation  of  the  subject  yet  made  is  that  made  in  1895 
by  the  late  Dr.  Charles  B.  Spahr,  who  found  that  44  per  cent 
of  the  families  in  the  United  States  owned  practically  no 
property  at  all;  that  seven-eighths  of  the  families  owned 
barely  one  eighth  of  the  national  wealth,  and  that  one  per 
cent  of  the  families  owned  more  than  the  remaining  ninety- 
nine  per  cent.1  It  is  certain,  moreover,  that  since  that 
time  there  has  been  a  marked  increase  in  the  degree  of  con- 
centration. 

The  Socialist  view  of  concentration :  The  concentration  of 
economic  power  and  of  social  wealth  in  the  hands  of  a  class 
is  a  necessary  stage  in  economic  evolution,  through  which 
society  must  pass  before  it  will  be  possible  to  conduct  pro- 
duction upon  a  cooperative  basis  with  collective  responsibil- 
ity. The  evils  which  result  are  incidental  and  it  would  be 
foolish  to  check  the  economic  development  because  of  the 
pain  which  it  involves,  even  if  that  were  possible.  Wherever 
injury  can  be  minimized  it  is  worth  while  to  do  so,  and,  so 
far  as  the  workers  are  concerned,  it  is  necessary  for  them  to 
combine  for  that  purpose.  That  is  the  reason  for  trades 
union  activity  and  for  political  activity  directed  toward 
remedial  social  reforms.  Within  capitalist  society  itself,  the 
industrial  forms  of  a  new  society  are  being  fashioned.  Along- 
side with  this  process  the  education  and  organization  of  the 
workers  is  going  on.  The  workers  of  a  century  ago  could 
not  have  established  an  industrial  democracy,  even  if  they 
had  been  educated  and  trained  to  participate  in  democratic 
government.  They  were  limited  by  the  isolated  hand  pro- 
duction of  the  time.  But  society  has  made  tremendous 

1  Spahr,  op.  cit.,  p.  69. 


THE   LAW   OF   CONCENTRATION  167 

strides.  We  are  already  in  the  presence  of  great  monopolies 
which  appear  to  the  Socialist  as  industrial  forms  ready  for 
the  spirit  of  democracy,  of  Socialism. 


SUMMARY 

1.  Under  capitalism  there  is  a  uniform  tendency  toward  the  con- 
centration of  industry  in  the  hands  of  the  few. 

2.  The  persistence  of  competition  in  petty  industries  is  relatively 
unimportant  and  does  not  invalidate  the  theory  of  concentration. 

3.  The  same  tendency  is  shown  in  modern  agriculture  through  the 
decreasing  proportion  of  farms  owned  by  their  operators,  and  in  the 
increasing  dependence  of  the  farmer  .upon  capitalist  industry. 

4.  Wealth  as  well  as  capital  tends  towards  class  concentration. 


QUESTIONS 

1.  Characterize  the  three  stages  of  capitalism. 

2.  On  what  grounds  is  the  theory  of  concentration  attacked? 

3.  How  may  the  persistence  of  small  industries  be  explained? 

4.  What  was  the  theory  of  Marx  in  regard  to  agricultural  concen- 
tration?    How  must  it  be  modified? 

5.  Along  what  lines  is  the  dependence  of  the  farmer  upon  capitalist 
industry  increasing? 

6.  What  are  the  difficulties  involved  in  determining  the  degree  of  the 
concentration  of  wealth? 

7.  What  is  the  Socialist  attitude  toward  the  concentration  of  wealth 
and  industrial  power? 

LITERATURE 

Bernstein,  E.,  Evolutionary  Socialism,  pp.  40-73. 
Kautsky,  K,  The  Social  Revolution,  pp.  37-65,  137-167. 
Marx,  Karl,  Capital,  Vol.  I,  chap,  xxix-xxxii;  Vol.  Ill,  chap,  xxxvii  and 
xlvii. 

Spahr,  C.  B.,  The  Present  Distribution  of  Wealth  in  the  United  States. 
Spargo,  John,  Socialism,  a  Summary  and  Interpretation,  chap.  v. 
Wilshire,  G.,  Socialism  Inevitable. 


CHAPTER  XV 

MONOPOLIES   AND   TRUSTS 

Advantages  of  large  scale  production:  The  industrial 
revolution  demonstrated  the  overwhelming  advantages  of 
division  of  labor  and  power  machinery  over  the  old  handi- 
craft system.  With  the  improvement  of  transportation 
facilities  the  early  form  of  the  factory  system  is  in  turn 
supplanted  by  a  system  of  large  scale  production  whose 
units  are  immense  factories,  often  employing  thousands  of 
hands.  Large  scale  production  saves  in  the  purchasing  of 
raw  materials  and  in  the  application  of  power.  Materials 
and  coal  can  be  purchased  in  train  loads  cheaper  than  in 
car  loads.  Five  thousand  horsepower  costs  much  less  than 
ten  times  as  much  as  five  hundred  horsepower.  Large  scale 
production  makes  possible  the  use  of  expensive  machin- 
ery and  the  attainment  of  a  high  degree  of  mechanical 
efficiency  in  consequence. 

The  labor  cost  is  relatively  less.  Greater  subdivision  of 
labor  makes  larger  production  possible.  The  cost  of  superin- 
tendence is  relatively  lower,  and  the  whole  organization  can 
be  made  more  efficient  and  more  nearly  perfect  than  would 
be  possible  with  production  on  a  small  scale.  Different 
grades  and  kinds  of  goods  can  be  made  in  different  plants 
belonging  to  the  same  concern,  and  each  plant  can  run  con- 
tinuously on  the  same  grade,  thus  saving  the  cost  of  changing 
machinery.  By-products  can  be  fully  utilized.  The  butcher 
who  kills  three  or  four  animals  a  week  can  use  nothing  but 
the  best  part?  of  the  meat  and  the  hide,  but  in  a  great  packing 
house  not  an  ounce  of  material  need  be  wasted.  Petroleum 
could  be  distilled  on  a  small  scale,  but  the  residuum  would 
be  wasted  and  only  the  kerosene  used.  In  a  Standard  Oil 
refinery  the  petroleum  yields  not  only  kerosene  and  gasoline, 
but  also  lubricating  oils,  paraffine,  aniline  dyes,  coal  tar, 
vaseline,  drugs  of  many  kinds,  and  even  the  chief  constitu- 

168 


MONOPOLIES  AND   TRUSTS  169 

ents  of  commercial  rubber.  A  large  concern  can  much  more 
easily  experiment  with  new  methods  and  new  by-products 
than  a  small  one. 

These  are  the  natural  and  legitimate  savings  of  large  scale 
production.  The  power  of  large  capital  also  obtains  for  a 
great  enterprise  special  privileges  from  state  and  local 
governments  and  from  railroad  and  steamship  companies. 
Companies  and  corporations  producing  on  a  large  scale  are 
enabled  to  undersell  their  competitors  in  one  locality  and 
crush  them,  while  keeping  up  prices  elsewhere. 

The  advantages  of  large  scale  production  are  limited  by 
the  "Law  of  Diminishing  Returns,"  and  there  is  undoubt- 
edly a  point  of  maximum  efficiency  in  the  unit  of  operation 
beyond  which  it  will  yield  less  than  a  proportionate  return. 
In  the  steel  industry  it  is  estimated  that  this  point  of 
maximum  efficiency  can  be  attained  by  the  investment  of 
$30,000,000.  This  investment  will  give  all  the  advantages 
of  large  scale  production. 

Advantages  of  combination:  But  while  such  a  concern  as 
the  Cambria  Steel  Company  may  be  able  to  produce  steel 
as  cheaply  as  the  United  States  Steel  Corporation,  the  latter 
has  many  advantages  due  to  the  harmonious  working 
together  of  many  scattered  units  of  operation.  The  advan- 
tages of  the  unit  of  maximum  efficiency  can  be  retained  and 
the  additional  advantages  of  combining  competing  plants 
obtained.  In  the  first  place,  fewer  salesmen  are  needed. 
Where  before  the  combination  each  establishment  was 
obliged  to  maintain  its  staff  of  salesmen  in  all  the  cities  in 
which  its  output  was  sold,  under  the  combination,  a  single 
selling  agency  with  its  branches  is  entirely  sufficient.  The 
Distilling  Company  of  America  could  thus  dispense  with  the 
services  of  three  hundred  salesmen  and  save  $1,000,000 
annually.1  The  American  Steel  and  Wire  Company  retained 
only  fifteen  or  twenty  salesmen  out  of  the  force  employed 
by  the  companies  making  the  combination,  "between  two 
and  three  hundred  men."2  A  similar  saving  can'  be  made  in 
advertising. 

Where  the  product  is  bulky  and  the  freight  cost  relatively 
high,  great  advantages  can  often  be  effected  by  shipping 

1  Montague,  Trusts  of  To-day,  p.  48. 

2  Report  of  The  Industrial  Commission,  Vol.  I,  p. 1018. 


170  ELEMENTS   OF  SOCIALISM 

to  the  consumer  from  the  nearest  plant,  thus  saving  cross 
freights.  Combination  in  production  permits  the  strategic 
location  of  plants,  from  which  distribution  can  be  made  with 
a  minimum  of  waste.  Mr.  John  W.  Gates,  of  the  American 
Steel  and  Wire  Company,  testifying  before  the  Industrial 
Commission,  said:  "I  should  think  that  the  cross  freights 
would  amount  to  half  a  million  or  a  million  dollars.  It  is 
a  saving  in  that  particular."1  With  their  greater  size  and 
capital  big  concerns  can  maintain  distributing  stations  in 
all  parts  of  the  country,  shipping  there  in  train-load  lots 
and  saving  the  additional  cost  of  small  shipments. 

In  many  industries  in  which  combination  has  taken  place 
there  are  great  advantages  due  to  the  integration  of  allied 
industries.  Before  the  organization  of  the  United  States 
Steel  Corporation  the  manufacture  of  such  finished  products 
as  tubes  and  tin  plates  was  carried  on  by  separate  concerns 
which  purchased  the  steel  from  other  corporations  engaged 
only  in  the  production  of  the  rougher  steel  products.  The 
combination  effected  a  saving  by  making  all  of  the  transfers 
of  material  from  the  iron  mine  to  the  final  sale  simply  matters 
of  bookkeeping. 

Where  competition  has  brought  into  existence  an  excessive 
number  of  plants,  the  combination  can  dismantle  and  aban- 
don a  large  proportion  of  them  with  profit.  An  extreme 
example  of  this  form  of  economy  is  found  in  the  history  of 
the  so-called  "Whiskey  Trust."  Eighty-one  distilleries  went 
into  the  original  combination  in  1887  and  all  but  ten  or 
twelve  of  the  plants  were  closed  soon  afterward  and  pro- 
duction concentrated  in  the  largest,  best  equipped  and  most 
conveniently  located  houses.2 

By  comparative  accounting  and  demonstration  as  between 
plants,  all  can  be  kept  up  to  the  highest  possible  efficiency. 
A  new  form  of  competition  is  inaugurated  between  the 
superintendents  and  men  of  different  plants  for  the  turning 
out  of  the  largest  product  at  the  lowest  cost. 

Large  scale  production  and  monopoly:  Monopoly  strictly 
means  that  the  total  supply  of  the  commodity  in  question  is 
controlled  by  one  person  or  group  of  persons.  In  practice 

1  Report  of  the  Industrial  Commission,  Vol.  I,  p.  1030. 

2  Report  of  The  Industrial  Commission,  Vol.  I,  p.  170.     Testimony  of 
C.  C.  Clark. 


MONOPOLIES  AND   TRUSTS  171 

the  term  is  used  to  signify  the  control  of  so  mucn  of  the 
supply  that  the  market  price  can  be  fixed  at  the  point  of 
highest  net  return.  A  corporation  controlling  three-fourths 
of  a  given  product  can  usually  control  the  price,  for  the  other 
producers  could  not  supply  the  market  if  they  tried,  and 
the  majority  of  purchasers  must  come  to  the  large  producer. 
Then  it  is  always  possible  for  such  a  concern  to  crush  the 
others  if  they  become  too  troublesome.  Therefore,  the  small 
manufacturers  generally  agree  to  sell  at  the  monopoly  price. 

Neither  large  scale  production  nor  combination,  nor  both 
together,  necessarily  constitute  monopoly.  Just  before  the 
organization  of  the  United  States  Steel  Corporation,  there 
were  several  independent  steel  companies  organized  on  a 
national  scale,  enjoying  nearly  all  the  benefits  of  large  scale 
production  and  combination.  In  general  the  threat  of  price 
cutting  brings  all  such  competitors  to  an  agreement  which 
affects  the  consumers  in  practically  the  same  manner  as  a 
monopolistic  combination. 

Industrial  monopoly  is  usually  the  result  of  the  combina- 
tion of  a  number  of  small  producers  for  the  purpose  of 
avoiding  the  evils  of  competition.  Combination  may  be 
effected  by  outright  purchase  of  one  concern  by  another,  by 
the  leasing  of  the  property  of  one  by  another,  by  the  organ- 
ization of  a  new  corporation  to  take  over  the  business  of  two 
or  more  older  concerns,  or  by  means  of  the  pool,  the  trust 
or  the  holding  company. 

Monopoly  may  also  result  from  a  number  of  other  causes. 
Chief  among  these  are  (a)  control  of  the  supply  of  raw 
material,  such  as  coal  and  iron-ore  deposits;  (b)  special 
advantages  granted  by  the  State,  such  as  franchises,  patents, 
trademarks,  land  grants,  protective  tariffs,  and  the  like; 
(c)  special  advantages  conferred  by  quasi-public  action,  such 
as  preferential  rates,  rebates,  exceptional  transportation 
facilities,  and  the  like,  granted  by  railroad  and  steamship 
companies  and  other  similar  corporations.  Then  there  are 
the  monopolies  which  are  commonly  termed  "natural  monop- 
olies," consisting  mainly  of  public  service  enterprises,  such 
as  railroads,  telegraphs,  telephones,  waterworks,  gas  and 
electric  lighting  and  street  railways.  These  are  called  natural 
monopolies  because  the  conditions  of  their  existence  prac- 
tically preclude  the  possibility  of  effective  competition.  To 


172  ELEMENTS   OF  SOCIALISM 

duplicate  any  one  of  the  public  services  named  in  any  city 
would  be  too  obviously  wasteful  to  be  tolerated.  Competing 
water  companies  or  competing  street  railway  companies 
are  not  practicable.  There  is  an  apparent  exception  to  this 
rule  in  the  case  of  the  telephone  service,  for  in  many  cities 
there  are  competing  companies.  But  here  again  the  waste 
is  so  obvious,  and  the  confusion  and  inconvenience  necessarily 
arising  from  having  to  use  two  or  more  systems  in  order  to 
get  a  full  local  telephone  service  so  great,  that  the  exception 
to  the  rule  is  more  apparent  than  real. 

Monopolies  in  the  United  States :  The  pool,  the  legal  trust 
and  the  holding  company  have  been  the  forms  which  monop- 
olistic combination  has  assumed  in  the  United  States  at 
different  stages  of  its  development.  These  three  forms  are  all 
illustrated  in  the  history  of  the  oil  industry.  Previous  to 
1874  the  oil  business  in  America  was  still  in  its  infancy.  Com- 
petition generally  prevailed.  Such  attempts  at  agreement 
as  the  South  Improvement  Company  (1871)  and  the  National 
Refiners'  Association  (1872)  completely  failed  to  effect  the 
object  in  view.  In  1874  the  principal  refiners,  of  whom  the 
members  of  the  Standard  Oil  Company  of  Ohio  were  already 
the  strongest,  met  and  agreed  to  divide  the  markets  among 
themselves  and  to  abstain  from  all  price  cutting.  This  agree- 
ment, which  became  known  as  the  Standard  Alliance,  was 
a  pool.  This  pool  was  further  strengthened  by  an  exchange 
of  stock  among  its  members. 

In  1882  it  was  felt  that  the  pool  was  too  loose  a  form  of 
organization  and  a  new  form  was  devised  which  became 
known  as  a  trust.  A  board  of  nine  trustees  was  chosen  by 
the  refiners  and  the  stock  of  all  the  leading  oil  companies 
was  deposited  with  them,  the  former  stock-holders  receiving 
in  exchange  trust  certificates  to  the  value  of  the  stock  they 
deposited.  All  dividends  were  then  paid  to  the  trustees  and 
by  them  paid  to  the  holders  of  trust  certificates  in  proportion 
to  their  holdings. 

The  trust  was  declared  illegal  under  the  common  law  by 
the  Supreme  Court  of  Ohio  in  1892.  Having  ignored  the  or- 
der of  the  Court,  it  was  attacked  in  contempt  proceedings, 
after  which  the  Standard  Oil  Company  of  New  Jersey  was  char- 
tered in  1899  as  a  holding  company  with  the  power  to  hold 
and  vote  the  stock  of  any  oil  company.  The  chief  difference 


MONOPOLIES   AND    TRUSTS  173 

between  this  form  and  the  trust  was  that  the  new  form  was 
regularly  incorporated  and  had  directors  instead  of  trustees. 
The  holding  company  is  also  commonly  called  a  trust  when 
it  has  monopoly  power. 

Examples  of  all  forms  of  combination  are  familiar  to-day 
and  the  prices  of  a  very  large  part  of  the  necessities  of  life 
are  fixed  by  monopolies  at  the  point  of  highest  net  return. 

Advantages  of  monopoly:  As  lately  as  the  middle  of  the 
nineteenth  century  it  was  thought  that  the  limit  of  large 
scale  production  was  reached  when  the  owners  of  the  business 
could  no  longer  personally  supervise  the  work  of  production. 
Now  all  is  changed.  The  development  of  the  great  industrial 
corporation  has  removed  the  owner  farther  and  farther  from 
the  process  of  manufacture.  Whole  great  national  industries 
are  now  controlled  by  gigantic  corporations.  Still  others  are 
monopolized  in  the  form  of  pools  and  agreements  for  the 
regulation  of  price  and  output. 

The  monopolistic  combination  has  all  the  advantages  of 
large  scale  production,  such  as  saving  in  the  purchase  and 
sale  of  goods  and  the  application  of  power,  in  labor,  in  organ- 
ization and  the  utilization  of  its  by-products.  It  has  also 
all  the  advantages  of  combination,  such  as  saving  in  the 
number  of  salesmen,  saving  in  cross  freights,  and  concentra- 
tion at  points  of  greatest  advantage.  Not  only  does  it  have 
these  advantages  in  the  highest  degree,  but  it  is  able  to  con- 
trol the  market  for  raw  materials  and  finished  products,  to 
regulate  the  output  according  to  demand,  and  fix  the  price 
at  the  point  of  highest  net  return. 

Monopolies  arising  out  of  franchises,  patents,  trademarks, 
land  grants,  protective  tariffs,  and  other  privileges  granted 
by  the  State,  or  from  the  favoritism  of  other  corporations 
have  most  of  these  advantages.  Monopoly  arising  out  of 
pure  combination  is  almost  always  complicated  by  some 
alliance  with  these  monopolies  of  privilege.  It  is  practically 
impossible  to  consider  them  apart.  For  example,  much  of 
the  strength  of  the  United  States  Steel  Corporation  has 
come  from  protective  tariffs,  franchises  and  patent  rights. 

Has  competition  been  fairly  tried?  It  has  been  asserted 
that  monopoly  is  exclusively  the  result  of  these  artificial 
conditions,  and  that  the  removal  of  the  various  forms  of 
special  privilege  would  destroy  monopoly  and  make  com- 


174  ELEMENTS  OF  SOCIALISM 

petition  real.  This  is  the  position  not  only  of  the  so-called 
Jeffersonian  Democrat,  but  of  the  philosophical  anarchist. 
But  the  J.  &  P.  Coats  Company,  which  practically  controls 
the  cotton  thread  market  of  the  world,  grew  up  in  free  trade 
England,  and  in  the  American  and  German  combinations 
the  growth  of  combination  has  not  been  confined  to  the 
industries  which  have  received  the  greatest  privileges.  Pro- 
tective tariffs  and  other  privileges  have  undeniably  hastened 
the  formation  of  monopoly,  but  the  inherent  advantages  of 
monopolistic  combination  would  of  themselves  be  a  sufficient 
and  compelling  reason  for  the  development  which  has  taken 
place. 

Competition  is  inherently  self-destructive.  Unchecked,  it 
becomes  a  war  to  the  death,  ending  in  the  ruin  of  the  weaker 
competitors.  Such  cut-throat  competition  is  usually  checked, 
however,  before  this  end  is  reached.  Generally  an  agreement 
is  reached  which  from  the  point  of  view  of  the  public  is 
virtually  a  combination.  The  Socialist  contends  that  some 
form  of  monopoly  is  inevitable,  and  also  that  nothing  short 
of  a  paralysis  of  the  genius  of  a  people  will  ever  prevent 
them  from  availing  themselves  of  all  the  advantages  of  large 
scale  production,  combination  and  monopoly.  Whenever 
it  becomes  apparent  that  a  decided  gain  will  result  from 
combination,  nothing  will  be  able  to  check  the  tendency 
toward  monopoly.  Upon  no  other  hypothesis  can  we  explain 
the  persistence  with  which  the  great  corporations  have 
opposed  all  restrictive  legislation,  enlisting  the  ablest  legal 
talent  of  the  country  in  the  work  of  devising  ways  and  means 
of  evading  and  defeating  the  object  of  such  legislation  as 
has  been  passed  and  preventing  the  adoption  of  still  further 
restrictive  measures. 

Restraint  of  trade:  Monopolies  and  combinations  have 
been  attacked  on  the  ground  that  they  are  contracts  in 
restraint  of  trade.  This  term  has  undergone  a  decided 
transformation  since  combination  assumed  its  present  form. 
In  the  earlier  common  law  restraint  of  trade  meant  the 
restraint  of  the  freedom  of  carrying  on  one's  personal  voca- 
tion or  trade.  As  early  as  the  reign  of  Henry  V  of  England 
an  action  was  brought  on  a  bond  in  which  a  dyer  had  con- 
tracted not  to  use  his  art  in  a  certain  city  for  a  period  of 
six  months.  The  bond  was  declared  void.  Under  modern 


MONOPOLIES  AND    TRUSTS  175 

conditions  the  common  law  is  interpreted  as  restraining  any 
interference  with  competition,  if  the  restraint  is  injurious 
to  one  of  the  parties  to  the  contract  or  is  likely  to  result  in 
injury  to  the  public.  Under  the  common  law,  then,  any 
agreement  to  raise  prices  is  invalid  and  criminal.  The 
"trust"  agreement  has  been  held  to  be  invalid;  and  a  cor- 
poration which  permits  its  stock  to  be  deposited  with  a 
board  of  trustees  for  the  purpose  of  avoiding  competition 
is  liable  to  the  forfeiture  of  its  charter.  The  cases  inder  the 
common  law  have  all  been  decided  in  the  State  courts,  and 
it  was  generally  possible  for  the  defendant  monopoly  to 
reorganize  in  another  State,  where  action  would  not  be 
brought  against  it. 

The  Sherman  anti-trust  law  was  passed  in  1890,  giving  to 
the  Federal  courts  jurisdiction  in  cases  of  restraint  of  trade 
where  the  trade  in  question  was  between  states,  between  the 
United  States  and  a  foreign  country,  or  in  the  District  of 
Columbia.  An  attempt  was  made  at  the  time  to  include  in 
the  law  an  exception  in  the  case  of  "reasonable"  restraint 
of  trade,  which  was  valid  under  the  common  law.  But  the 
amendment  was  rejected  by  Congress,  and  the  law  expressly 
states  that  "every  contract,  combination  in  the  form  of  a 
trust  or  otherwise,  or  conspiracy  in  restraint  of  trade  or 
commerce  is  ...  illegal."1 

The  law  has  been  applied  in  a  number  of  cases,  and  has 
been  upheld  as  constitutional.  In  most  of  the  cases  tried 
under  this  law  the  net  result  has  been  that  the  form  of  com- 
bination has  been  altered  without  material  change  in  fact. 
The  law  has  been  most  effective  when  applied  to  labor 
organizations.  In  the  decisions  in  the  cases  of  the  Standard 
Oil  Company  and  the  American  Tobacco  Company,  in  May, 
1911,  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  read  into  the 
law  the  exception  which  Congress  had  refused  to  include 
in  it,  so  that  the  law  now  reads  in  effect  "Every  contract 
...  in  unreasonable  restraint  of  trade  ...  is  illegal." 

Thus  monopolistic  combinations  as  such  are  not  forbidden, 
and  it  lies  wholly  within  the  province  of  the  courts  to  deter- 
mine whether  any  particular  combination  is  injurious  to  the 
public  or  to  any  of  its  members. 

Present  status  of  monopoly:  The  fact  of  monopoly  was 

1  U.  S.  Comp.  Stat.,  1901,  p.  3200. 


176  ELEMENTS   OF  SOCIALISM 

not  in  the  least  affected  by  the  Supreme  Court  decisions  in 
the  Standard  Oil  and  Tobacco  cases  in  May,  1911.  The 
holding  corporation  as  such  was  not  declared  illegal.  The 
stock  of  the  corporation  maintained  the  same  high  price  as 
before.  The  Sherman  Act  has  failed  to  bring  about  competi- 
tion in  the  place  of  monopoly.  Monopolies  may  continue 
as  before  with  such  slight  modifications  and  changes  in 
their  form  of  organization  as  the  courts  may  suggest.  The 
control  of  industry  is  even  easier  than  before,  because  there 
is  no  longer  any  uncertainty  as  to  the  application  of  the  law. 

Regulation  of  monopoly :  The  only  method  of  coping  with 
the  evils  of  monopoly  left  to  those  who  oppose  public  monop- 
oly is  that  of  regulation  by  the  State.  Those  who  urge  this 
method  argue  that  as  the  corporation  is  a  creature  of  the 
State,  an  artificial  person,  the  State  is  in  a  special  sense 
responsible  for  it.  The  form  of  regulation  which  offers  the 
greatest  promise  and  is  most  generally  advocated  is  federal 
incorporation  of  concerns  doing  an  interstate  business,  with 
the  right  to  regulate  prices  exercised  by  a  commission  sim- 
ilar to  the  Interstate  Commerce  Commission,  which  has  the 
power  to  regulate  railway  rates.  Federal  incorporation  is 
advocated  by  President  Taft,  and  Judge  Gary  of  the  United 
States  Steel  Corporation  has  expressed  his  willingness  to 
have  the  Government  fix  prices  in  such  a  way  as  to  guarantee 
good  dividends  to  the  stock-holders. 

Such  regulation  will  probably  be  extensively  tried,  and  the 
trial  will  mean  that  the  theory  of  the  possibility  of  conduct- 
ing industry  upon  a  competitive  basis  is  definitely  abandoned. 
The  question  of  regulation  will  then  resolve  itself  into  a  test  of 
strength  between  the  industrial  State  and  the  political  State. 
If  the  industrial  State  with  its  plutocracy  is  able  to  dictate 
to  the  political  State  and  control  the  commission  charged 
with  the  task  of  regulating  the  corporations,  then  dividends 
will  continue  to  be  paid  on  watered  stock,  prices  will  still 
remain  at  the  point  of  highest  net  return  and  the  corpora- 
tions will  be  more  safely  entrenched  than  before. 

The  Socialist  view  of  State  regulation:  From  the  Socialist 
point  of  view,  the  objections  to  regulation  are  its  inherent 
wastefulness,  its  bureaucratic  nature  and  its  ineffectiveness. 

(1)  Regulation  is  inherently  uneconomical  in  that  prac- 
tically all  the  labor  it  involves  is  unproductive  and  unneces- 


MONOPOLIES   AND    TRUSTS  177 

sary,  or,  at  least,  only  necessary  to  avoid  the  evils  of  a 
defective  system  which  might  be  replaced  by  a  better  one. 
Regulation  really  means  that,  in  addition  to  the  social  labor 
necessary  to  production  society  must,  through  the  State, 
expend  still  further  social  labor,  simply  to  compel  the  monop- 
olist to  observe  the  rules  which  society  in  the  exercise  of  its 
sovereignty  has  decided  shall  govern  production.  These 
rules  the  monopolist  is  constantly  tempted  to  break,  because 
at  every  turn  they  hamper  him  in  his  effort  to  gather  profits. 
No  one  has  yet  made  a  serious  and  exhaustive  study  of  this 
question  and  attempted  to  compute  the  cost  to  the  nation 
of  the  measure  of  regulation  we  have  already  tried.  That 
the  sum  would  be  enormous  if  computed  is  evident.  Take 
the  regulation  of  railroads,  for  example:  the  cost  of  all  the 
federal  and  state  legislation  enacted  for  the  purpose  of 
regulating  the  railroads,  its  interpretation  by  the  state  and 
federal  courts  in  the  almost  innumerable  conflicts  which  have 
arisen  under  it,  of  the  army  of  persons  and  the  costly  machin- 
ery of  government  employed  in  its  enforcement,  including 
such  expensive  agencies  as  the  Interstate  Commerce  Com- 
mission, must  all  be  reckoned.  All  this  expense  is  incurred 
in  order  that  we  may  retain  private  monopoly  and  at  the 
same  time  protect  ourselves  against  its  worst  evils.  The 
true  cost  of  railway  service  to  the  people  is  not  the  amount 
they  pay  to  the  railroad  companies,  but  that  amount  plus 
what  they  spend  in  "regulating"  the  ra  ways. 

(2)  The  natural  and  instinctive  tendency  of  the  monopolist 
is  to  strive  to  evade  all  restrictions  imposed  upon  him  which 
in  any  manner  interfere  with  his  profits.  To  make  the  regula- 
tions adopted  effective,  it  is  necessary  to  demand  from  the 
monopolist  a  vast  amount  of  nformation  concerning  his 
business.  To  be  of  any  service  this  nformation  must  be 
examined,  tabulated  and  checked — for  which  work  the  main- 
tenance of  an  expensive  bureau  is  necessary.  To  detect  and 
frustrate  attempts  to  evade  the  law,  and  to  punish  violations 
of  the  law,  inspectors,  detectives,  attorneys  and  prosecutors 
must  be  employed  in  large  numbers.  As  a  result  of  this 
organized  interference  with  business  and  business  methods 
by  the  State  we  have  developed  a  bureaucratic  form  of 
government  very  different  from  the  simple  democratic  form 
of  government  which  formerly  prevailed. 


178  ELEMENTS   OF  SOCIALISM 

(3)  Regulation  must  ultimately  fail  for  the  reason  that 
the  gain  to  the  monopolist  which  evasion  or  violation  of  the 
regulations  imposed  upon  him,  when  it  can  be  accomplished 
with  safety,  is  an  incentive  against  which  the  State  is  unable 
to  contend  successfully.  It  is  the  same  principle  which 
makes  it  almost  impossible  for  the  authorities  to  prevent 
the  sale  of  liquor  in  a  prohibition  state.  So  long  as  the  State 
permits  the  private  monopolist  to  exist,  it  can  accomplish 
little  of  permanent  value  by  imposing  restrictions  upon  him 
which  make  it  impossible  for  him  to  obtain  the  profits  he 
would  otherwise  receive.  He  will  bribe  the  State's  officials 
where  possible,  and  secure  immunity  while  he  violates  the 
law.  Where  that  is  impossible,  he  will  engage  the  brightest 
and  ablest  minds  in  the  nation  to  make  a  way  whereby  the 
forbidden  fruit  can  be  obtained.  Thus  the  State  must  always 
be  in  the  position  of  having  many  of  the  ablest  and  keenest 
minds  devoted  to  the  special  task  of  outwitting  it.  At  best, 
regulation  thus  becomes  a  war  between  the  social  organiza- 
tion, the  State,  and  a  class  of  monopolists. 

Private  versus  public  monopoly:  Private  monopoly  is 
universally  dreaded,  and  justly  so.  Monopoly  gives  power 
which  it  is  not  safe  to  entrust  to  any  group  of  men  in  a 
commonwealth.  It  is  essentially  oligarchic,  the  rule  of  the 
many  by  the  few.  This  is  true  regardless  of  the  number  of 
stockholders.  The  United  States  Steel  Corporation  may  have 
forty  thousand  stockholders,  but  the  real  power  of  the  con- 
cern is  vested  in  a  small  group  of  financiers  as  surely  as  if 
they  owned  all  of  the  stock  themselves.  Such  great  con- 
centration of  power  is  destructive  of  personal  liberty,  the 
freedom  of  speech  and  the  press,  of  political  democracy  itself. 
Its  destructive  work  is  done  in  subtle  and  insidious  ways. 
Churches  and  colleges  are  often  bribed  with  gifts  to  become 
the  defenders  and  apologists  of  plutocracy.  Ministers  and 
teachers  are  rarely  purchased  directly,  but  they  are  supported 
financially,  praised  and  promoted  in  proportion  to  their  faith 
in  and  devotion  to  the  existing  order. 

Under  monopoly,  prices  are  always  fixed  at  the  point  of 
the  highest  net  return.  In  this  sense,  monopoly-price  is 
always  high  price.  "Get  out  of  the  consumer  all  that  you 
can"  is  the  motto  of  monopoly.  Only  thus  can  Standard  Oil 
pay  forty  per  cent,  dividends  and  American  Tobacco  twenty- 


MONOPOLIES  AND   TRUSTS  179 

five  per  cent,  when  the  current  rate  of  in  terestis  less  than 
five  per  cent.  Other  monopolies  pay  similarly  high  dividends 
but  conceal  them  by  means  of  over-capitalization.  But  while 
monopoly-price  is  high  price  in  the  sense  denned,  it  does  not 
follow  that  under  monopoly  the  consumer  has  to  pay  higher 
prices  for  the  commodities  he  consumes  than  he  would  have  to 
pay  if  competitive  methods  prevailed.  Sometimes,  indeed, 
the  reverse  is  true.  By  fixing  the  price  of  commodities  at  the 
point  of  the  highest  net  return  is  meant  fixing  the  price  at 
the  level  which  gives  the  maximum  of  profit  upon  the  whole 
output,  rather  than  upon  the  unit  commodity.  Thus,  more 
profit  can  be  made  by  selling  a  large  number  of  phis  at  five 
cents  a  package  than  could  be  made  by  selling  a  very  much 
smaller  number  at  ten  cents.  Regardless  of  other  factors, 
monopoly  always  determines  prices  according  to  this  rule. 
Sometimes,  owing  to  economies  in  production,  it  can  reap 
enormous  profits  while  maintaining  prices  at  a  level  which 
under  competition  would  have  left  only  a  very  narrow 
margin  of  profit.  Thus,  while  the  Distilling  and  Cattle 
Feeding  Company  raised  prices,  the  Standard  Oil  Company, 
on  the  other  hand,  steadily  reduced  the  price  of  oil  and 
other  products.  The  Sugar  Trust,  while  it  raised  prices 
above  the  level  reached  during  the  period  of  relentless  cut- 
throat competition  which  ruined  nearly  fifty  per  cent,  of  the 
independent  refiners  before  the  American  Sugar  Refining 
Company  was  formed,  still  did  not  raise  them  to  the  high 
level  maintained  for  a  long  period  at  an  earlier  stage  of  the 
competitive  era  of  the  industry.  On  the  whole,  however, 
it  is  safe  to  conclude  with  Prof.  Jenks,  that  monopolistic 
combinations  have  with  practical  uniformity  either  main- 
tained or  raised  prices.1 

Potential  good  in  monopoly:  But  while  private  monopoly 
is  admittedly  fraught  with  danger  to  the  public  welfare,  it 
would  be  a  mistake  to  regard  it  as  other  than  a  step  in  the 
direction  of  a  saner  and  juster  industrial  economy.  Great 
as  are  its  disadvantages,  its  potential  advantages  are  equally 
great.  The  elimination  of  wasteful  and  anarchical  methods 
is  in  itself  a  good  and  desirable  thing:  what  is  wrong  is  the 
fact  that  the  resulting  benefits  are  enjoyed  by  the  few^ancT 
not  by  society  as  a  whole. .  There  has  been  some  positive 

M.  W.  Jenks,  N.  Amer.  Review,  June,  1901. 


180  ELEMENTS   OF  SOCIALISM 

social  gain  in  that  the  monopolization  of  industry  has  been 
largely  accompanied  by  a  modernizing  of  plants,  large,  well- 
ventilated  factories  taking  the  place  of  dingy,  unsanitary 
sweatshops  and  factories.  Despite  the  revelations  of  condi- 
tions in  the  Pittsburgh  steel  mills  made  by  the  investigators 
of  the  Sage  Foundation,  this  is  generally  true  of  all  industry 
which  has  passed  from  competition  to  monopoly. 

From  a  Socialist  viewpoint,  then,  indiscriminate  abuse  of 
monopoly  is  unwise  and  unscientific.  The  Socialist  regards 
monopoly  as  a  necessary  step  in  the  evolution  of  industry 
from  wasteful  and  injurious  competition  to  a  social  monopoly 
with  all  its  benefits  socially  enjoyed.  According  to  this 
view,  social  monopoly  is  at  once  the  next  step  in  evolution 
and  the  solution  of  the  so-called  Trust  Problem. 

Public  ownership:  The  greatest  progress  in  public  owner- 
ship has  been  made  by  municipalities.  It  usually  begins 
with  the  water  supply.  Municipal  ownership  of  the  water 
supply  system  is  very  general  in  Europe.  Even  in  the  United 
States,  where  municipal  ownership  has  made  less  progress 
than  in  Europe,  sixty  per  cent,  of  the  water  systems  are 
municipally  owned  and  operated.  Other  public  services, 
such  as  gas,  electric  light,  power  and  heat  plants  and  street 
railways,  remain  for  the  most  part  in  private  hands  on  this 
side  of  the  Atlantic.  In  Great  Britain,  on  the  other  hand, 
more  than  half  the  gas  consumed  is  supplied  by  municipalities 
owning  and  operating  their  own  systems.  Experience  has 
demonstrated  the  superiority  of  public  enterprise  over 
private  enterprise  in  this  important  service.  Comparing 
cities  of  the  same  size,  it  is  a  notable  fact  that  in  those  cities 
where  the  gas  supply  is  privately  owned  and  operated,  only 
about  half  as  many  people  per  1,000  of  population  use  gas 
as  where  the  service  has  been  municipalized.  The  average 
price  of  gas  per  1,000  cubic  feet  is  lower  under  public  than 
under  private  ownership.  Nor  are  these  the  only  advantages. 
As  a  rule,  the  wages  of  the  workers  employed  in  municipally 
owned  gas-works  are  higher  than  those  of  similar  workers 
employed  by  private  companies,  and  their  hours  of  labor 
are  less.  The  service  is  more  efficient  and  complaints  are 
"more  readily  adjusted.  It  has  been  found  that  the  municipal 
administration  is  generally  more  progressive  than  the 
private  company  and  more  ready  to  adopt  new  inventions 


MONOPOLIES   AND    TRUSTS  181 

and  improvements.  In  addition  to  these  very  substantial 
benefits,  the  net  earnings  of  the  municipal  undertakings  are 
considerable,  and  in  many  cities  large  sums  are  applied  from 
these  earnings  to  the  reduction  of  taxation  or  to  the  cost  of 
new  improvements.  Manchester,  for  example,  devotes  more 
than  $600,000  a  year  to  the  reduction  of  taxation  from  the 
net  profits  of  its  gas  supply. 

Another  public  service  which  in  American  cities  remains 
almost  entirely  in  private  hands,  while  in  Great  Britain  it  is 
largely  municipalized,  is  local  transportation.  Practically 
every  large  city  in  Great  Britain  owns  and  operates  its  own 
street  railways,  or  is  preparing  to  do  so.  Also,  nearly  every 
large  city  owns  and  operates  its  electric  lighting  system, 
and  more  than  half  the  capital  invested  in  this  industry  in 
Great  Britain  represents  municipal  undertakings.  In  both 
these  services  municipal  ownership  results  in  benefits  simi- 
lar to  those  enumerated  in  connection  with  the  gas  sup- 
ply. Naturally,  these  advantages  have  given  a  great  impetus 
to  public  ownership  in  Great  Britain.  Glasgow  and  several 
other  cities  have  municipal  telephone  systems.  Colchester 
has  an  oyster  fishery.  Many  of  the  large  cities  conduct 
farms  hi  connection  with  the  disposal  of  their  sewage,  instead 
of  wasting  the  sewage  and  polluting  lakes  and  rivers  as  is  too 
often  done  in  this  country.  Birmingham,  for  example,  sells 
enough  stock,  wool,  crops  and  other  farm  products  to  yield 
a  revenue  of  $125,000  a  year. 

In  addition  to  all  the  advantages  enumerated,  public 
ownership  tends  to  prevent  graft  and  political  corruption. 
This  is  almost  self-evident,  despite  the  frequency  of  the 
argument  that  the  extension  of  public  ownership  would 
make  graft  more  general.  Every  careful  investigation  of  the 
causes  of  graft  and  political  corruption  in  American  cities 
has,  traced  these  evils  to  two  mam  sources,  the  granting  of 
franchises  and  the  letting  of  contracts.  When  an  Alderman 
is  paid  for  his  vote  by  a  franchise-seeking  corporation  it  is 
evident  that  public  government  is  corrupted  by  private 
monopoly.  It  cannot  be  denied  that  the  desire  and  effort 
of  private  monopoly  to  exploit  society  and  make  a  profit 
put  of  its  needs  is  the  main  cause  of  graft  and  corruption 
in  our  municipal  politics.  The  remedy  for  this  is  to  supplant 
private  monopoly  by  social  monopoly.  It  will  be  seen,  then, 


182  ELEMENTS  OF  SOCIALISM 

that  the  arguments  for  public  ownership,  even  under  the 
present  system,  are  numerous  and  strong. 

State  Socialism:  The  extension  of  government  ownership 
and  State  interference  with  industry,  unaccompanied  by  any 
change  in  existing  class  relations  or  increase  in  the  power 
of  the  people  as  against  the  power  of  capital,  is  sometimes 
called  State  Socialism.  The  term  is  not  a  felicitious  one. 
Many  Socialists  object  to  its  use  and  urge  the  use  of  the 
term  "State  Capitalism"  as  being  more  accurate — on  the 
ground  that  the  State  simply  takes  the  place  of  the  individual 
capitalist  or  the  corporation,  and  carries  on  industry  in  the 
old  manner  without  any  material  change.  The  term  State 
Socialism  is  here  used  with  this  explanation. 

Every  country  has  a  certain  amount  of  State  Socialism. 
The  postal  service  is  a  government  monopoly  in  every 
civilized  country.  So  are  the  coinage  of  money  and  the  light- 
house and  life-saving  services  with  few  exceptions.  Most 
countries  except  the  United  States  own  and  operate  the 
telegraph  and  telephone  services  in  connection  with  the 
postal  system.  State  insurance  against  sickness,  accident 
and  old  age  is  common.  Prussia  and  Italy  own  the  railroads 
within  their  borders.  Switzerland  owns  all  its  water  power. 
France  has  a  monopoly  of  tobacco  and  Sweden  of  alcoholic 
liquors.  Japan  has  gone  far  along  the  path  of  State  Social- 
ism, owning  railroads,  telegraphs  and  many  manufacturing 
monopolies.  Australia  and  New  Zealand  have  gone  even 
further  in  the  direction  of  State  Socialism  and  are  also  more 
democratically  organized  than  the  other  countries  named 
with  the  single  exception  of  Switzerland. 

However  desirable  State  Socialism  may  be  as  a  corrective 
of  some  of  the  worst  evils  of  competition,  or  of  private 
monopoly,  it  cannot  be  regarded  as  a  solution  of  the  social 
problem.  The  fundamental  criticisms  which  are  made 
against  the  industrial  system  in  countries  where  private 
ownership  is  more  general  are  made  against  the  industrial 
system  in  countries  having  the  largest  measure  of  State 
Socialism.  The  same  class  distinctions  exist,  the  class 
struggle  continues,  the  proletariat  still  gets  only  a  wage 
determined  by  competition  in  the  labor  market  and  lives 
near  the  poverty  line,  the  capitalist  is  lord  of  the  industrial 
State  and  through  the  power  thus  acquired  becomes  directly 


MONOPOLIES  AND   TRUSTS  183 

the  ruler  of  the  political  State.  .State  ownership  is  not  only 
not  Socialism,  but  it  is  not  of  necessity  a  step  toward  it. 
The  failure  of  State  Socialism  to  do  away  with  poverty 
and  other  evils  is  therefore  not  a  valid  argument  against 
Socialism.  In  general,  however,  Socialists  favor  the  exten- 
sion of  government  ownership.  They  look  upon  it  as  the 
development  within  the  capitalist  order  of  the  political  and 
industrial  forms  which  the  proletariat  will  some  day  inherit 
and  transform  into  the  Socialist  State. 


184  ELEMENTS  OF  SOCIALISM 

SUMMARY 

1.  Large  scale  production  saves  in  the  purchase  of  raw  materials 
in  the  marketing  of  the  product,  in  the  application  of  power,  in  labor, 
and  in  the  utilization  of  by-products. 

2.  Combination  saves  in  the  cost  of  salesmen,  in  the  elimination  of 
cross-freights,  in  the  elimination  of  poorly  located  plants  and  in  com- 
parative accounting  and  demonstration. 

3.  Monopolistic  combinations  embody  the  advantages  of  large  scale 
production  and  combination  with  the  power  to  control  markets  and 
prices. 

4.  Monopoly  in  spite  of  its  dangers  is  a  distinct  forward  step  and  is 
an  inevitable  feature  of  modern  industrial  conditions. 

5.  Socialists  regard  State  regulation  of  monopoly  as  wasteful,  bureau- 
cratic and  ineffective. 

6.  The  public  ownership  of  public  service  utilities  and  "State  Social- 
ism "  have  distinct  advantages,  but  cannot  be  regarded  as  solutions 
of  the  social  problem. 

QUESTIONS 

1.  What   are  the  specific   advantages  of  large  scale  production? 
Of  combination?     Of  monopoly? 

2.  What  have  been  the  usual  forms  of  monopolistic  combination  in 
the  United  States? 

3.  What  are  natural  monopolies?    Why  are  they  so  called? 

4.  What  is  meant  by  the  "Doctrine  of  restraint  of  trade"? 

5.  Why  do  Socialists  regard  State  regulation  as  likely  to  fail? 

6.  How  may  monopoly  benefit  the  consumer? 

7.  What  are  the  advantages  of  the  public  ownership  of  traction 
facilities?    What  are  the  objections  to  public  ownership? 

8.  To  what  extent  do  we  have  "State  Socialism"  in  the  United 
States? 

LITERATURE 

Ely,  R.  T.,  Monopolies  and  Trusts. 

Howe,  F.  C.,  The  City,  the  Hope  of  Democracy,  Chap.  IX. 

Jenks,  J.  W.,  The  Trust  Problem. 

Report  of  the  United  States  Industrial  Commission,  Vol.  I. 

Ripley,  W.  Z.  (editor),  Trusts,  Pools  and  Corporations. 

Shaw,  Albert,  Municipal  Government  in  Great  Britain. 

Tarbell,  Ida  M.,  History  of  the  Standard  Oil  Company. 


PAKT  III 
THE  SOCIALIST  IDEAL 


CHAPTER  XVI 

THE   UTOPIAN   SOCIALIST  IDEAL 

The  ideal  of  perfection:  In  every  age  of  civilization  there 
have  always  been  idealists  who,  realizing  the  imperfections 
and  injustices  of  the  world  as  it  is,  have  endeavored  to 
formulate  their  conceptions  of  the  world  as  it  ought  to  be. 
Mankind  has  always  had  a  weakness  for  these  beautiful 
pictures  of  a  perfected  world,  and  many  of  them  have  given 
rise  to  sects  and  societies  working  for  the  realization  of  the 
ideal.  The  picture  drawn  is  usually  nothing  more  than  the 
literary  expression  of  the  author's  dreams,  without  any 
intention  of  starting  a  movement  or  a  revolution.  Its  in- 
fluence in  bringing  about  social  changes  depends  upon  the 
social  and  economic  conditions  existing  at  the  time  in  the 
land  of  its  origin.  The  Utopian  ideal  frequently  merges 
imperceptibly  into  the  concept  of  a  future  life  beyond  the 
grave,  and  in  writings  of  a  mystical  type  it  is  sometimes 
difficult  to  tell  which  is  meant,  the  earthly  paradise  of  the 
future  or  the  paradise  in  which  dwell  the  spirits  of  the  blessed 
dead. 

The  Utopias  present  themselves  to  us  in  almost  infinite 
variety  and  they  form  one  of  the  most  interesting  chapters 
in  the  world's  literature.  It  will  be  impossible  for  us  to 
do  more  than  notice  briefly  a  few  of  the  most  important  of 
these  pictures  and  the  movements  which  have  followed 
them. 

Ancient  Utopias:  One  of  the  first  definite  pictures  of  an 
ideal  world  is  the  Republic  of  Plato,  one  of  the  great  master- 
pieces of  literature.  It  is  remarkable  that  even  the  great 
Athenian  philosopher  could  not  conceive  of  a  society  which 
was  much  more  than  the  Athens  he  knew  and  loved  with 
the  more  obvious  defects  removed.  Communism  still  existed 
to  a  very  large  extent  in  Athens,  but  only  within  the  limited 
cultured  class.  Beneath  were  the  slaves,  who  far  out- 

187 


188  ELEMENTS  OF  SOCIALISM 

numbered  the  citizens  and  by  their  labor  gave  to  the  Athe- 
nians the  leisure  to  develop  their  culture.  The  wife  was  only 
a  sort  of  superior  domestic  slave  without  personality  of  her 
own.  So  Plato  extends  the  idea  of  communism  in  the 
Republic,  introduces  community  of  wives  and  children,  and 
founds  his  whole  ideal  state  upon  slavery.  Thus  the  Republic 
was  little  more  than  a  description  of  the  then  existing  Athens 
idealized.  Although  there  are  many  features  of  this  Utopia 
which  are  repulsive  to  the  mind  of  the  twentieth  century, 
it  undoubtedly  pictured  for  the  Athenian  of  Plato's  day  a 
higher  and  nobler  ideal  than  he  had  heretofore  known. 

The  Republic  was  written  in  the  midst  of  the  most  wonder- 
ful civilization  of  antiquity  by  one  of  its  greatest  philosophers. 
Three  centuries  later,  amid  the  ruins  of  an  idealistic  civiliza- 
tion which  had  been  paralyzed  by  the  moral  degeneracy  of 
its  ruling  class  and  crushed  by  foreign  military  power,  a 
man  of  the  people  began  to  preach  the  ideal  of  a  perfected 
and  regenerated  state  on  earth  blended  with  the  ideal  of 
another  life  of  bliss  beyond  the  grave.  His  preaching  and 
tragic  death  brought  about  the  formation  of  an  organized 
group  which,  in  the  face  of  relentless  persecution  and  martyr- 
dom, carried  on  the  Master's  preaching  and  laid  the  founda- 
tions of  organized  Christianity,  the  most  influential  of  all 
world  movements.  It  is  especially  noteworthy  that  this 
movement  was  in  its  origin  essentially  communistic,  for  it 
is  recorded  that  "all  that  believed  were  together,  and  had 
all  things  common;  and  they  sold  their  possessions  and 
goods,  and  parted  them  to  all,  according  as  any  man  had 
need."1  And  again,  "not  one  of  them  said  that  aught  of  the 
things  he  possessed  was  his  own;  but  they  had  all  things 
common."51  From  the  point  of  view  of  its  influence  upon 
the  lives  of  men  no  other  Utopian  ideal  can  rank  with  the 
"Kingdom"  which  Jesus  proclaimed. 

Sir  Thomas  More  and  his  "Utopia":  .The  work  which 
has  given  its  name  to  all  speculations  as  to  a  perfect  society 
had  its  origin  in  the  social  unrest  of  England  during  the 
Reformation  period,  and  was  written  by  a  man  who  as  Lord 
Chancellor  of  England  disagreed  with  his  royal  master, 
Henry  VIII,  and  paid  the  penalty  on  the  scaffold.  Its 

1  The  Acts,  chap,  ii,  44. 

2  Idem,  chap,  iv,  32. 


THE    UTOPIAN   SOCIALIST   IDEAL  189 

literary  form  has  been  very  generally  followed  in  the  later 
Utopias. 

Until  the  Great  Plague  of  1348-49,  which  killed  half  the 
population  of  England,  agricultural  interests  were  still  of 
first  importance,  and  the  manorial  system  still  prevailed. 
After  the  plague  there  was  a  scarcity  of  labor  and  wages  rose 
rapidly  until  parliament  passed  the  "Statute  of  Laborers," 
fixing  wages  at  the  rate  which  had  prevailed  before  the 
plague.  This  resulted  hi  the  Peasants'  Revolt  of  1381,  and 
a  partial  victory  for  the  laborers.  As  the  towns  grew  and 
the  woollen  trade  became  more  important,  the  landlords 
enclosed  the  manorial  lands  and  became  sheep  raisers,  thus 
dispensing  with  the  services  of  a  large  part  of  the  trouble- 
some laboring  class,  dispossessing  them  from  their  homes 
and  driving  them  into  the  towns  to  become  common  laborers, 
or,  in  many  cases,  reducing  them  to  vagabondage,  crime  and 
beggary.  It  was  the  natural  hardship  of  the  transition 
period  between  the  old  and  the  new,  but  More  saw  only  the 
distress  of  the  people  and  demanded  a  return  to  the  happy 
days  of  the  agricultural  stage. 

The  Utopia  (1516)  "contains  the  criticism  of  a  great 
philosopher  on  the  industrial  and  social  changes  marking 
the  opening  of  the  age  of  capitalism."1  The  criticism  of 
early  sixteenth  century  society  takes  the  form  of  a  contrast 
of  the  ideal  commonwealth  "Utopia,"  which  is  supposed 
to  have  been  visited  by  an  explorer  in  the  recently  discovered 
New  World.  More  points  out  the  growing  contrast  between 
the  rich  and  the  poor  in  England,  the  evils  of  low  wages 
and  the  oppression  of  class  by  class.  He  attacks  property 
rights  in  all  forms,  and  condemns  evil  conditions  whether  in 
State,  church,  or  in  the  hearts  of  individuals.  The  con- 
demnation of  the  rich  parasites  and  their  "retainers  and 
loitering  serving  men,"  the  charge  that  private  property 
gives  rise  to  crime,  which  is  chiefly  committed  against 
property,  and  the  scathing  denunciation  of  war  and  mili- 
tarism, all  sound  very  much  like  the  social  criticism  of 
to-day. 

In  Utopia  these  evils  do  not  exist.  Property  is  held  in 
common,  "every  family  maketh  its  own  garments,"  six 
hours  a  day  are  given  to  labor  and  there  is  no  exploitation, 

1  Socialism  Before  the  French  Revolution,  by  W.  B.  Guthrie,  p.  92. 


190  ELEMENTS  OF  SOCIALISM 

all  able-bodied  persons  work,  even  women  and  the  clergy. 
Monogamous  marriage  exists,  regulated  by  the  State  for  the 
good  of  society;  money  does  not  exist,  and  gold  is  put  to 
base  uses;  the  government  is  an  absolute  monarchy,  but  the 
monarch  is  elected  by  the  people. 

The  Utopia  did  not  give  rise  to  any  sect,  party  or  move- 
ment, but  the  beauty  of  the  ideal  and  the  perfection  of  its 
literary  dress  have  made  it  one  of  the  immortal  masterpieces 
of  literature.  As  such  it  has  had  a  great  and  beneficent 
influence  during  nearly  four  hundred  years. 

Utopias  of  the  seventeenth  and  eighteenth  centuries:  In 
the  two  centuries  after  the  time  of  More  a  number  of  note- 
worthy Utopias  were  written.  Tommaso  Campanella,  a  Cala- 
brian  monk,  wrote  The  City  of  the  Sun  (1623),  a  fanciful 
work  which  is  believed  to  have  inspired  the  Jesuits  to  under- 
take their  communistic  experiments  in  Paraguay.  His  work 
is  in  many  respects  similar  to  Plato's  Republic.  His  ideal 
involves  communism  in  goods  and  wives,  but  slavery  is 
prohibited  and  work  is  common  to  all.  A  contemporary  of 
Campanella,  Francis  Bacon,  statesman  and  philosopher, 
wrote  the  New  Atlantis  (1627),  a  distinctly  philosophical 
romance.  The  work  is  a  romantic  description  of  an  imaginary 
ideal  State  in  which  the  happiness  of  the  people  is  attained 
by  means  of  the  political  machinery  under  State  guidance. 
In  a  sense  the  work  is  incomplete,  for  the  author  did  not 
live  to  fulfil  his  intention  of  publishing  a  complete  model 
of  the  laws  necessary  for  such  a  commonwealth.  James 
Harrington's  Oceana  (1656)  was  written  during  the  period 
of  the  author's  self-imposed  seclusion  following  the  execu- 
tion of  his  friend,  Charles  I.  Half  romance  and  half  treatise, 
its  style  was  probably  suggested  by  More's  great  work,  but 
the  ideal  which  it  presents  is  a  very  different  one.  Harring- 
ton is  first  of  all  a  republican.  The  rulers  of  ideal  common- 
wealth are  all  elected  by  the  people,  by  ballot,  the  term  of 
office  being  three  years.  The  Senate  discusses  and  debates 
laws,  the  people  decide  upon  their  adoption  and  rejection, 
and  the  elected  magistrates  execute  them.  Private  property, 
as  such,  is  not  interfered  with,  but  landed  property,  being  the 
most  important  form  of  property,  the  one  which  confers 
greatest  power,  is  so  distributed  that  no  one  person  can 
obtain  more  than  a  certain  fixed  revenue  from  it.  After  the 


THE    UTOPIAN  SOCIALIST   IDEAL  191 

Restoration  of  Charles  II,  Harrington  was  imprisoned  in  the 
Tower  of  London  for  treason.  Morelly  in  the  next  century 
with  his  Basiliade  (1753)  and  Code  de  la  Nature  (1755), 
marked  a  distinct  advance  in  the  direction  of  modern  thought. 
For  the  former  work  he  adopted  the  medium  of  fiction 
usually  chosen  by  Utopians,  but  the  latter  work  is  a  treatise, 
frankly  analytical  and  philosophical  in  form.  He  had  a  pro- 
found influence  in  forming  the  social  theories  of  the  French 
Revolution.  The  period  of  the  Revolution  itself  gave  rise 
to  many  Utopias,  o7  which  those  of  Boissel,  Babeuf  and 
Barnave  are  the  best  known. 

Saint-Simon:  We  come  now  to  that  remarkable  group  of 
Utopians,  Saint-Simon,  Fourier,  Owen  and  Cabet,  whose 
influence  upon  the  Socialist  movement  as  we  now  conceive 
it  was  by  no  means  small.  The  first  of  these,  Count  Henri 
de  SaintjSimon,  was  born  in  1760,  and  lived  through  the 
stirring  times  of  the  reign  of  Louis  XVI,  the  Revolution  and 
the  First  Republic,  studying  and  experimenting.  His  first 
published  work  appeared  in  1802,  but  it  was  not  until  1817, 
in  L' Industrie,  that  he  began  to  teach  his  views  in  regard 
to  society.  The  best  expression  of  his  theory,  however,  is 
contained  in  Le  Nouveau  Christianisme,  published  in  1825. 
It  was  this  work  which  first  aroused  the  interest  of  Karl 
Marx  in  the  subject  of  Socialism. 

The  recent  Revolution  and  the  economic  conditions  of  the 
Restoration  gave  Saint-Simon  the  basis  for  his  theories. 
He  believed  that  the  goal  of  social  activity  is  "the  exploita- 
tion of  the  globe  by  association,"  In  some  respects  he  comes 
remarkably  near  to  the  viewpoint  of  the  later  scientific 
Socialists.  For  example,  the  idea  that  political  questions 
and  political  institutions  are  based  on  economics  appears  in 
L' Industrie,  where  he  points  out  that  politics  is  really  after 
all  nothing  but  the  science  of  production  and  foretells  the 
future  complete  absorption  of  politics  by  economics.  While 
he  had  nothing  like  a  conception  of  the  theory  of  class  struggles 
in  the  modern  Socialist  sense,  at  times  he  came  very  close 
to  it.  In  his  very  first  work  he  insisted  that  the  French 
Revolution  was  essentially  a  class  war,  and  that  the  Reign 
of  Terror  was  the  reign  of  the  non-possessing  masses.  His 
concern  is  always  for  the  workers,  "the  class  that  is  the  most 
numerous  and  the  most  poor."  Still,  his  perception  of  class 


192  ELEMENTS   OF  SOCIALISM 

antagonisms  is  not  deep  enough  to  prevent  him  from  building 
his  Utopia  around  the  idea  that  the  bankers,  merchants, 
manufacturers,  and  other  sections  of  the  bourgeoisie  will 
become  at  once  servants  of  thd  whole  of  society,  divested 
of  their  class  feelings  and  interests.  This  is  not  remarkable 
in  view  of  the  fact  that  modern  industry  was  only  beginning 
in  France  when  Saint-Simon  wrote,  but  the  fact  marks  his 
whole  thought  as  essentially  Utopian.  The  religious  side 
of  Saint-Simonism  is  important,  if  mystical.  The  existing 
forms  of  religion  are  all  to  be  abolished,  and  a  new  ethical 
order  founded  upon  the  teachings  of  Jesus,  having  for  its 
object  the  amelioration  of  the  conditions  of  the  poor.  After 
his  death  Saint-Simon's  teachings  were  taken  up  by  a  band 
of  devoted  disciples,  but  vain  and.  fanatical  leadership 
demoralized  the  movement,  and  it  became  the  prey  of 
freaks  who  dragged  it  into  the  mire  and  thoroughly  dis- 
credited it. 

Fourier :  The  work  of  Charles  Fourier  was  much  more  far- 
reaching  in  its  influence  than  that  of  Saint-Simon.  Fourier 
was  born  at  Besancon,  France,  in  1772.  He  was  the  son  of 
a  wealthy  merchant  and  received  a  legacy  of  about  80,000 
francs  upon  the  death  of  his  father  in  1781.  It  is  said  that 
he  lost  practically  the  entire  sum  during  the  siege  of  Lyons 
in  1793.  In  1812  he  received  a  second  legacy  from  his 
mother's  estate,  which  yielded  him  an  income  of  about  900 
francs  a  year,  and  this  enabled  him  to  abandon  commerce 
and  devote  himself  to  the  study  of  social  problems.  In 
1803  his  first  work  appeared,  an  essay  in  which  Fourier 
developed  the  idea  that  in  order  to  have  universal  peace 
it  was  necessary  to  establish  a  universal  empire.  Fourier's 
social  theories  are  contained  in  the  following  works:  The 
Theory  of  the  Four  Movements  and  of  the  General  Destinies, 
1808;  Treatise  of  Domestic  and  Agricultural  Association, 
or  Theory  of  Universal  Harmony,  1822;  New  Industrial 
World,  1829;  False  Industry  and  Its  Antidote,  Natural, 
Attractive  Industry,  1835. 

Fourier  differs  from  all  the  other  Utopians  in  that  he  does 
not  make  his  appeal  to  the  sentiments  of  men,  but  to  their 
material  interests.  He  does  not  condemn  society  because  of 
the  sufferings  it  inflicts  upon  the  poor,  but  upon  the  waste- 
fulness and  anarchy  of  production.  His  cry  is  for  "Order" 


THE    UTOPIAN  SOCIALIST  IDEAL  193 

and  "Harmony,"  not  for  "Justice"  or  "Fraternity."  That 
happiness  for  all  mankind  would  result  from  this  social  order 
Fourier  believed,  and  so  much  was  implied  in  all  his  teach- 
ing. But  it  was  not  his  primary  concern.  Like  Saint-Simon, 
he  was  essentially  religious  and  his  theories  were  closely 
related  to  his  religious  conceptions.  But  his  religion  is  very 
unlike  Saint-Simon's:  it  is  more  philosophical  and  less  hu- 
manitarian and  emotional.  He  regards  the  whole  universe 
as  God's  harmonious  creation.  Its  wonderful  harmony 
impressed  him  as  the  model  man  ought  to  copy  in  his  social 
arrangements.  God  never  wasted  effort  and  therefore  the 
passions  and  instincts  with  which  man  was  endowed  were 
meant  by  God  to  be  used.  Every  human  passion,  therefore, 
must  have  its  place,  and  only  that  society  is  worthy  which 
offers  full  opportunity  for  their  free  exercise. 

Such  is  Fourier's  philosophy,  briefly  stated.  Upon  it  he 
rests  the  most  elaborate  scheme  ever  devised  by  any  Utopian 
writer,  and  that  fact  makes  all  the  more  remarkable  the  great 
vogue  it  obtained.  It  is  impossible  here  to  do  more  than 
outline  the  main  features  of  Fourier's  system.  The  social 
unit  is  the  Phalanx,  not  the  State  as  with  Saint-Simon  and 
most  of  his  predecessors.  The  normal  Phalanx  consists  of 
four  hundred  families,  or  eighteen  hundred  persons,  living  on 
a  square  league  of  land,  self-contained  and  self-supporting. 
This  Phalanx  provides  its  members  with  every  opportunity 
for  the  free  development  of  the  most  varied  likings  and 
capacities.  The  principal  edifice,  the  communal  dwelling, 
is  a  Palace,  which  Fourier  describes  in  great  detail.  It  con- 
sists of  a  double  line  of  continuous  buildings,  about  2,200  feet 
in  length.  There  are  dining-halls,  study  rooms,  a  library, 
workshops  for  noisier  occupants — far  removed  from  the 
quiet  centre — a  hotel  with  apartments  for  strangers,  and  the 
apartments  of  the  members  are  so  varied  as  to  meet  every 
individual  need  and  preference.  The  various  phalanges  are 
ultimately  to  form  a  great  federation  with  a  capital  at 
Constantinople.  The  chief  ruler  of  the  world  will  then  be 
the  Omniarch,  and  he  will  be  assisted  by  three  Augusts, 
twelve  Cesarinas,  forty-eight  Empresses,  144  Kalifs,  576 
Sultans,  and  so  on. 

An  essential  feature  of  his  system  was  the  emphasis  placed 
upon  the  education  of  children.  Give  useful  vent  to  every 


194  ELEMENTS   OF  SOCIALISM 

passion  and  desire,  he  reasoned,  and  all  will  be  well.  Children 
love  to  play  in  the  dirt,  for  example,  therefore  the  passion 
must  be  given  free  play.  But  it  should  not  be  wasted.  The 
children  can  be  organized  into  "little  hordes"  to  remove  the 
dirt  from  around  the  Palace — a  rather  queer  anticipation  of 
the  boys'  street  cleaning  brigades  of  some  of  our  cities.  There 
is  nothing  of  communism  in  Fourier's  scheme.  The  property 
of  the  Phalanx  is  to  be  held  by  stockholders.  It  is  not 
necessary  to  hold  stock  in  order  to  be  a  member,  nor  need 
one  be  a  member  in  order  to  become  a  stockholder.  Every 
member  must  labor  at  rates  fixed  by  the  council.  At  the 
end  of  the  year  an  inventory  is  made  and  the  profits  are 
divided — five-twelfths  to  labor,  four-twelfths  to  capital, 
three-twelfths  to  skill  or  talent. 

But  the  most  fantastic  part  of  Fourier's  system  is  his  theory 
of  cosmogony.  As  one  reads  it  to-day  it  is  impossible  not 
to  marvel  that  so  many  brilliant  minds  were  attracted  by 
Fourierism.  The  life  of  each  planet,  including  the  earth, 
is  80,000  years.  The  period  of  infancy  is  5,000  years,  that 
of  ascending  development  35,000  years,  that  of  descending 
development  35,000  years,  that  of  senility  5,000  years. 
Within  the  life  of  the  earth  the  human  race  must  pass  through 
thirty-two  periods.  We  are  now  in  the  fifth  period,  civiliza- 
tion. The  eighth  period  will  be  that  of  Harmony  and  will 
bring  complete  happiness.  Then  there  will  develop  a  "polar 
crown,"  which  will  revolutionize  the  globe.  The  ice  will 
disappear  from  the  arctic  circles  and  there  will  be  no  torrid 
zone,  for  climate  will  be  equal  all  over  the  world.  Wild 
beasts  will  disappear  and  new  animals,  useful  to  man,  will 
take  their  place.  Even  the  water  of  the  ocean  will  acquire 
a  new  use — it  will  become  lemonade,  so  that  he  who  desires 
to  quench  his  thirst  need  never  want. 

Fourier's  relation  to  Socialism:  Such  were  the  teachings 
of  the  man  whose  most  brilliant  disciples  were  to  be  found 
here  in  the  New  World,  where  his  social  system  received  its 
most  important  trials.  What,  it  may  well  be  asked,  have 
these  theories  to  do  with  Socialism — how  does  Fourier  enter 
into  the  history  of  the  movement  at  all?  In  the  first  place, 
Fourier  is  not  in  a  true  sense  of  the  term  a  Socialist.  His 
basic  idea  is  rather  that  of  establishing  harmony  between 
labor  and  capital.  He  comes  near  to  the  modern  scientific 


THE    UTOPIAN  SOCIALIST   IDEAL  195 

Socialists  in  one  respect,  namely,  in  his  criticism  of  existing 
society.  With  rare  literary  charm  he  satirizes  the  bourgeoisie 
in  a  manner  which  makes  one  wonder  that  so  keen  a  satirist 
should  manifest  so  small  a  sense  of  humor.  His  criticism 
of  the  position  of  woman  is  most  masterly.  It  is  to  him 
we  owe  the  idea  that  the  degree  of  woman's  emancipation  is 
the  best  measure  of  the  general  emancipation  of  any  society. 
Then,  too,  Fourier's  conception  of  social  evolution,  and  his 
division  of  the  history  of  mankind  into  epochs,  is  an  inter- 
esting anticipation  of  the  evolutionary  basis  of  modern 
Socialism.  Finally,  as  one  of  the  last  of  those  great  move- 
ments for  the  remolding  of  society  to  conform  to  an  abstract 
principle,  it  must  be  considered  in  any  study  of  the  develop- 
ment of  the  Utopian  tendency  to  the  point  where  it  loses 
itself  in  the  new  movements  of  science. 

Robert  Owen :  By  far  the  greatest  of  this  group  of  Utopi- 
ans is  KoberTOwen,  sometimes  called  the  "Father  of  Modern 
Socialism."  Born  in  1771,  of  poor  parents,  Owen  was  one 
of  those  who  acquired  a  fortune  out  of  the  commercial  mael- 
strom which  attended  the  birth  of  the  Industrial  Revolution 
in  the  series  of  inventions  that  culminated  with  Watt's 
steam  engine  and  Cartwright's  power  loom.  While  he  was 
yet  in  his  teens  Owen  rose  to  a  prominent  position  as  a  manu- 
facturer. He  saw  the  appalling  misery  and  poverty  which 
attended  the  new  industrial  regime,  and  was  especially 
struck  by  the  terrible  suffering  of  little  child  workers,  who, 
from  the  age  of  five,  were  compelled  to  work  as  many  as 
fourteen  hours  out  of  the  twenty-four,  by  night  as  well  as 
by  day,  and  subjected  to  almost  incredible  cruelty  and 
hardship.  Owen  began  an  agitation  in  Manchester  which 
led  to  the  passing  of  the  first  factory  act,  in  1802,  by  the 
Peel  ministry. 

Owen  is  best  known  by  the  Utopian  experiments  he  made 
at  various  times  and  places,  of  which  New  Lanark,  Scot- 
land, and  New  Harmony,  in  the  State  of  Indiana,  are  the 
most  important.  The  first  of  these  was  an  example  of 
paternalism,  a  sort  of  "benevolent  feudalism";  the  second 
was  an  example  of  modified  communism.  Owen  went  to 
New  Lanark  on  the  opening  day  of  the  nineteenth  century 
to  assume  the  management  of  a  large  cotton  mill,  of  which 
he  was  part  owner.  The  factory  employed  more  than  two 


196  ELEMENTS   OF   SOCIALISM 

thousand  persons,  and  was  widely  known  as  "the  best 
regulated  factory  in  the  world."  But  even  here  Owen  found 
conditions  so  bad  as  to  be  positively  revolting,  and  at  once 
set  himself  to  the  task  of  improving  them.  He  established 
infant  schools,  among  the  very  first  of  their  kind,  and  set 
apart  certain  hours  in  the  afternoon  for  the  instruction  of 
the  child-laborers.  Prior  to  his  coming  children  of  five  and 
six  years  of  age  were  employed  from  six  in  the  morning  to 
seven  in  the  evening  and  then  compelled  to  go  to  school. 
He  shortened  the  hours  of  labor  for  all  employees,  raised 
wages,  introduced  sanitary  reforms,  relieved  the  workers 
from  the  clutches  of  unscrupulous  traders  who  exploited 
them  shamefully  through  a  vicious  credit  system,  establish- 
ing a  store  to  supply  them  with  goods  at  cost  and  making 
payment  of  wages  more  frequent.  In  short,  all  that  phi- 
lanthropy could  devise  or  suggest  was  attempted.  New 
Lanark  acquired  a  world-wide  reputation  as  the  centre  of 
the  greatest  social  experiments  in  history.  Distinguished 
men  from  all  parts  of  the  world  visited  the  place  and  with 
a  unanimity  that  is  a  rare  tribute  to  Owen's  skill  and  sincerity 
praised  it  highly.  Again  and  again  Owen  was  forced  to 
make  great  financial  sacrifices  and  change  partners.  Al- 
though the  business  paid  handsomely,  there  was  almost 
invariably  an  objection  by  his  partners  to  the  expenditure 
of  so  much  money  upon  what  they  could  not  but  consider 
a  foolish  object.  For  twenty-nine  years  Owen  kept  up  the 
New  Lanark  work  and  then  turned  to  the  advocacy  of  com- 
munism, the  second  phase  of  his  social  career. 

At  New  Lanark,  through  his  educational  experiments, 
Owen  had  become  impressed  with  the  idea  that  human 
character  is  largely  formed  by  and  dependent  upon  environ- 
ment. This  he  made  the  basis  of  an  educational  propaganda 
that  was  very  far-reaching,  and  that  drew  forth  the  most 
bitter  attacks  by  those  who  regarded  his  assault  on  the 
doctrine  of  the  freedom  of  the  will  as  an  attack  upon  all  that 
religion  meant.  In  1817,  when  the  British  government  was 
discussing  the  best  means  of  remedying  the  frightful  distress 
of  the  period,  Owen  proposed  a  plan,  the  essential  feature  of 
which  was  that  the  government  should  establish  commu- 
nistic villages.  From  this  time  onward  he  gradually  lost 
interest  in  mere  philanthropy.  He  wrote  and  lectured 


THE    UTOPIAN  SOCIALIST   IDEAL  197 

incessantly,  advocating  the  establishment  of  cooperative 
communities.  Like  Fourier,  whose  work  he  always  claimed 
to  have  to  a  large  extent  inspired,  Owen  hoped  for  a  great 
federation  of  the  world  to  come  from  these  communities. 
His  ideal  is  cooperative  industry  with  perfect  equality 
between  the  sexes.  To  the  establishment  of  cooperative 
"colonies"  Owen  devoted  nearly  all  of  his  large  fortune. 
Of  these  experiments  that  of  New  Harmony  was  the  most 
important,  alike  as  regards  size  and  influence. 

Owen  did  not  write  a  work  analogous  to  the  romance  of 
More.  His  theories  and  ideas  are  stated  in  a  formidable  array 
of  pamphlets,  manifestos,  lectures,  debates  and  philosophical 
treatises.  Toward  the  end  of  his  life,  when  his  mind  had 
already  become  feeble,  Owen  brought  much  discredit  upon 
his  ideas  by  his  own  eccentric  conduct.  But  if  we  take  his 
life  as  a  whole,  up  to  the  point  where  his  mental  grasp  be- 
comes weak,  we  see  a  singularly  noble  and  unselfish  character, 
devoted  with  a  courage  and  an  enthusiasm  that  are  rare 
to  the  welfare  of  humanity.  His  practical  achievements 
were  by  no  means  small.  He  laid  the  foundation  of  England's 
factory  legislation;  he  started  infant  schools;  he  directly 
inspired  the  great  cooperative  movement,  for  the  Rochdale 
movement  was  the  result  of  the  success  of  New  Lanark; 
he  was  one  of  the  pioneers  of  trades  unionism,  presiding  at 
the  first  organized  congress  of  labor  unions  as  far  back  as 
1834.  He  was  a  man  in  whom  the  practical  and  the  ideal 
were  strangely  blended.  Essentially  a  Utopian,  he  was 
nevertheless  a  shrewd  man  of  business.  It  is  said  of  him 
that  when  on  one  occasion  he  submitted  some  scheme  of 
social  organization  to  the  British  government,  and  its  con- 
sideration was  postponed  to  the  next  session  of  parliament, 
he  cried  out  to  his  friend  Lord  Brougham,  "What!  will  you 
postpone  the  happiness  of  the  whole  human  race  to  the  next 
session  of  parliament?" 

Cabet:  Etienne  Cabet,  a  French  physician,  was  the  leader 
and  inspirer  of  the  last  of  the  great  Utopian  movements. 
He  was  at  first  an  active  politician,  his  activities  leading 
to  his  exile  for  five  years.  These  five  years  were  spent  in 
England,  where  Cabet  came  under  the  influence  of  Owen. 
Returning  to  France  in  1839  he  published  his  famous  Utopian 
romance,  Voyage  en  Icarie.  The  plot  of  the  book  is  essen- 


198  ELEMENTS  OF  SOCIALISM 

tially  similar  to  that  of  More's  Utopia — it  is  the  journal  of 
one  who  has  travelled  among  a  strange  and  unknown  people. 
Cabet's  system  is  very  much  that  of  Owen.  He  advocates 
communism,  and  outlines  a  plan  for  the  inauguration  of  the 
new  regime.  This  plan,  or  program,  includes  progressive 
income  taxes,  abolition  of  the  right  of  inheritance,  establish- 
ment of  agricultural  colonies  and  national  workshops,  and, 
above  all,  completely  free  education.  The  book  created  a 
tremendous  furore  in  France,  and  in  1847  Cabet  believed 
that  he  had  four  hundred  thousand  workers  ready  to  go  to 
America  to  found  his  ideal  commonwealth.  Actually,  how- 
ever, the  number  of  those  who  went  was  extremely  small. 
Dissensions  arose  and  split  the  movement,  Cabet  himself 
being  expelled  in  1856.  He  had  grown  dictatorial  and  nar- 
row and  intolerant  and  his  expulsion  was  the  natural  expres- 
sion of  the  revolt  of  the  younger  element.  The  movement 
never  recovered  from  the  split,  and,  like  so  many  other 
Utopian  movements,  gradually  degenerated  and  disappeared 
without  leaving  any  material  impress  upon  the  life  of  that 
world  which  it  was  designed  to  transform  and  regenerate. 
The  modern  Utopians :  The  Utopian  literature  of  the  last 
half  century  has  been  thrown  into  the  background  by  the 
stronger  appeal  of  the  Marxian  thought  and  movement, 
but  in  literary  quality  and  wealth  of  imagination  much  of  it 
is  of  a  very  high  order.  Edward  Bellamy,  in  Looking  Back- 
ward, describes  a  great  machine-made  state  in  which  every- 
thing is  run  with  the  precision  of  clock-work.  It  is  the  most 
mechanical  of  all  the  Utopias,  and  leaves  very  little  room  for 
the  development  of  individuality.  Nevertheless,  its  appear- 
ance, in  1887,  gave  a  great  impetus  to  the  Socialist  "move- 
ment" of  the  time,  by  suggesting  plausible  solutions  to 
many  practical  problems  which  perplexed  a  great  many 
persons.  It  contributed  in  no  small  degree  to  separate  the 
Socialists  and  the  Anarchists  of  the  period  more  definitely 
than  had  been  done  heretofore.  This  was  a  natural  result  of 
Bellamy's  emphasis  of  the  State.  On  the  other  hand,  the 
book  probably  contributed  in  some  degree  to  the  creation 
of  the  fear  that  Socialism  must  involve  bureaucracy.  Five 
years  after  Bellamy's  book  appeared  William  Morris  pub- 
lished his  News  from  Nowhere.  In  literary  quality  this  is 
by  far  the  best  of  all  the  modern  works  of  its  kind,  and  as 


THE    UTOPIAN   SOCIALIST   IDEAL  199 

an  example  of  English  prose  it  ranks  high.  Morris's  soul 
revolted  against  Bellamy's  mechanical  and  unlovely  common- 
wealth, and  News  from  Nowhere  was  a  counterblast,  as  it 
were.  In  his  desire  for  freedom  of  the  individual  Morris 
swings  to  the  other  extreme  from  Bellamy  and  pictures  a 
State  which  might  be  described  as  anarchist-communism 
with  an  idealized  pastoral  and  handicraft  system  as  its  basis. 
William  Dean  Howells  in  A  Traveller  from  Altruria  contrasts 
the  present  with  the  ideal  and  takes  a  position  midway 
between  that  of  the  practical  Bellamy  and  Morris  the  idealist 
and  poet.  H.  G.  Wells,  on  the  other  hand,  views  the  world's 
problems  as  an  engineer  and  suggests  rather  than  describes 
their  solutions. 

Value  of  the  Utopian  ideal :  Despite  all  their  eccentricities 
and  failings  the  Utopian  Socialists  have  greatly  benefited 
mankind.  They  have  rendered  a  great  service  by  their 
criticisms  of  existing  society,  and  by  holding  out  the  inspira- 
tion of  a  definite  ideal.  It  has  always  been  too  common  for 
men  to  accept  things  without  questioning  them,  to  assume 
that  whatever  is  is  right,  and  that  what  is  must  continue 
to  be.  The  Utopians  have  bravely  challenged  this  conserva- 
tism and  forced  millions  of  men  and  women  to  move  in  the 
direction  of  progress,  who  otherwise  would  not  have  moved 
at  all.  It  matters  little  that  their  plans  were  impracticable, 
nor  even  that  any  serious  attempt  to  carry  them  out  would 
have  brought  about  a  worse  condition  than  that  which 
their  authors  sought  to  remedy.  The  inertia  of  conservatism 
and  the  inexorable  forces  of  social  evolution  made  the  accept- 
ance of  their  plans  impossible,  but  nothing  could  prevent 
mankind  from  seeing  the  evils  which  these  prophets  of  a  bet- 
ter social  order  decried,  and  so,  even  though  we  speak  of  the 
"failures"  of  dreamers  like  More  and  Owen,  it  must  be  con- 
fessed that  much  of  the  progress  we  have  made  has  been 
directly  inspired  by  them.  Their  success  lay  in  other  direc- 
tions than  they  dreamed. 


200  ELEMENTS   OF   SOCIALISM 


SUMMARY 

1.  In  every  age  men  have  pictured  an  ideal  world  to  be  attained  by 
moral  regeneration  or  by  the  adoption  of  a  specific  plan. 

2.  These  Utopias  have  had  their  bases  in  the  economic  conditions 
of  the  time  in  which  they  were  written  and  usually  picture  the  ideal 
by  contrast  with  the  real. 

3.  The  most  influential  of  the  Utopians  of  modern  times  were  St. 
Simon,  Owen.  Fourier,  and  Cabet,  who  served  as  the  fore-runners  of 
the  modern  Socialist  movement. 

4.  The  Utopian  ideals  have  rendered  great  social  service  by  their 
criticisms  of  existing  society,  and  by  shaking  the  inertia  of  conservatism 
and  stimulating  progress. 


QUESTIONS 

1.  Upon  what  does  the  influence  of  a  Utopia  in  bringing  about  social 
changes  depend? 

2.  Discuss  the  Utopian  ideal  of  Plato. 

3.  What  were  the  social  conditions  giving  rise  to  the  Utopia  of  Sir 
Thomas  More? 

4.  Characterize  briefly  The  City  of  the  Sun.    The  New  Atlantis. 
The  Oceana. 

5.  What  elements  of  modern  Socialism  are  to  be  found  in  the  teach- 
ings of  St.  Simon? 

6.  What  is  the  significance  of  Fourierism  to  Socialist  thought? 

7.  What  is  the  position  of  Owen  in  Socialist  history? 

8.  Characterize  the  work  of  the  modern  Utopians. 

9.  What  essential  features  are  common  to  the  ideals  of  all  the 
Utopians? 

10.  What  positive  results  have  the  Utopians  accomplished? 


LITERATURE 

In  addition  to  the  works  of  the  Utopian  writers  themselves,  as  men- 
tioned in  the  text,  the  following  books  will  be  found  useful. 
Engels,  F.,  Socialism,  Utopian  and  Scientific. 
Guthrie,  W.  B.,  Socialism  before  the  French  Revolution. 
Hillquit,  M.,  History  of  Socialism  in  the  United  States. 
Kaufman,  M.,  Utopias,  or  Schemes  of  Social  Improvement. 
Morley,  H.,  Ideal  Commonwealths. 
Podmore,  F.,  Life  of  Robert  Owen. 
Wolsey,  T.,  Communism  and  Socialism. 


CHAPTER  XVII 

THE  IDEALS   OF   MODERN   SOCIALISM 

Socialist  ideals,  old  and  new:  While  he  may  not  dream 
with  the  Utopian  Socialist  of  a  perfected  humanity,  the 
Marxian  Socialist  has  many  ideals  in  common  with  the 
Utopian  Socialist.  The  main  difference  between  the  two 
types  lies  in  the  bases  of  their  hopes  for  the  attainment  of 
their  ideals,  rather  than  in  the  nature  of  the  ideals  themselves. 
For  example,  the  Marxian  Socialist  is  as  conscious  of  the 
wastefulness  and  anarchy  of  the  modern  system  of  produc- 
tion as  Fourier  himself  could  possibly  have  been,  and  just 
as  anxious  to  have  a  well-ordered  productive  system  with 
all  its  waste  and  disorder  eliminated.  Moreover,  he  is  quite 
as  confident  as  Fourier  ever  could  have  been  in  his  most 
sanguine  moments  that  sooner  or  later  the  system  of  pro- 
duction will  be  so  transformed.  But  he  does  not  rest  his 
hope  for  the  attainment  of  that  ideal  of  a  well-ordered  plan 
of  production  upon  the  merits  of  any  scheme  or  plan,  nor 
yet  upon  the  ability  of  himself  or  others  to  persuade  the 
world  to  improve  its  industrial  methods.  He  simply  rests 
upon  the  facts  of  evolution  and  their  logic.  If  order  is  to 
be  established  in  production  it  will  not  be  because  men  have 
been  persuaded  that  waste  is  against  the  moral  law,  but 
because  that  force  which  lies  back  of  all  progress,  which  is 
forever  reducing  the  pain  cost  of  life,  impels  the  change. 
In  a  word,  because  they  have  discovered  a  better  way. 

Socialism  essentially  idealistic:  Every  Socialist  is  of 
necessity  an  idealist.  He  could  not  be  a  Socialist  in  any  real 
sense  of  the  word  unless  he  had  first  measured  the  existing 
reality  by  some  standard.  That  standard  is  his  ideal.  He 
measures  the  world  as  it  is  by  some  conception  of  what  it 
might  be,  and  that  conception  translates  itself  into  what  it 
ought  to  be.  It  is  sometimes  said  that  the  Marxian  theory 
robs  Socialism  of  its  idealism  and  makes  it  harsh  and  mechan- 

201 


202  ELEMENTS  OF  SOCIALISM 

ical;  that  it  takes  the  splendid  moral  passion  of  the  move- 
ment and  binds  it  down.  Such  criticism  comes  alone  from 
those  who  do  not  know  the  Socialist  movement.  No  one 
who  is  at  all  familiar  with  the  history  of  the  movement 
will  contend  that  it  has  manifested  less  idealism  since  Mara 
than  before  him.  The  life  of  Marx  himself  is  a  splendid 
example  of  the  loftiest  idealism,  and  the  upbuilding  of  the 
movement  in  the  various  countries  has  involved  an  amount 
of  sacrifice  on  the  part  of  its  devotees  which  nothing  but  a 
great  ideal  could  have  inspired.  No  other  movement  in 
history,  with  the  exception  of  early  Christianity,  has  called 
forth  so  much  heroic  sacrifice,  and  service  during  so  great  a 
period  and  in  face  of  such  great  odds. 

The  ideal  of  international  solidarity :  Modern  Socialism  is 
essentially  international.  Its  great  birth-cry,  the  Communist 
Manifesto,  called  upon  the  workingmen  of  all  countries  to 
unite,  and  from  that  day  to  the  present  the  ideal  of  inter- 
national working-class  solidarity  has  been  before  the  move- 
ment. The  vision  of  a  great  world  unity  is  older  than  Marxian 
Socialism,  older  even  than  the  Christian  religion.  The  ideal 
of  internationalism  is,  therefore,  not  peculiar  to  modern 
Socialism.  But  that  is  equally  true  of  all  its  ideals  of  per- 
sonal freedom,  of  peace,  of  fraternity.  All  the  great  and  noble 
aspirations  which  the  prophets  of  all  the  ages  have  voiced 
find  expression  in  the  Socialist  movement.  What  is  peculiar 
to  the  movement  is  the  basis  it  offers  for  faith  and  hope  of 
their  realization. 

Unlike  the  Utopian  Socialists  of  an  earlier  generation,  the 
Socialists  of  to-day  do  not  concern  themselves  with  schemes 
for  the  formal  federation  of  the  world  into  a  great  world- 
republic.  They  waste  no  time  devising  schemes  of  federation 
similar  to  that  of  Fourier's  hierarchy.  What  is  far  more 
important  than  any  formal  unity  is  the  unity  of  spirit  which 
the  movement  breathes  in  all  its  propaganda  throughout  the 
civilized  world.  International  congresses  of  workers  may  or 
may  not  be  progenitors  of  international  parliaments  of  the 
Socialist  nations  of  the  world.  One  thing  is  certain,  namely, 
that  the  Socialist  movement,  by  holding  out  the  ideal  of 
international  solidarity,  is  hastening  the  realization  of  a 
lasting  world  peace. 

Socialism  is  not  anti-patriotic:  But  while  the  ideal  of 


THE   IDEALS   OF   MODERN  SOCIALISM  203 

internationalism  is  fundamental  to  Socialism,  we  must  not 
make  the  mistake  of  assuming  that  Socialism  involves  anti- 
patriotism,  that  there  is  anything  incongruous  in  a  Socialist 
being  a  loyal  citizen  of  the  country  or  state  in  which  he  lives, 
and  of  being  ready  to  defend  it  against  attack,  if  necessary. 
The  Bebel  who  in  the  Reichstag  opposed  Bismarck  and  pro- 
tested against  the  annexation  of  Alsace-Lorraine  as  an  outrage 
was  quite  logical  when,  on  another  occasion,  in  his  debate 
with  Domela  Nieuwenhuis,  the  Dutch  Anarchist  leader,  he 
declared  that  in  case  of  an  attack  upon  Germany  by  Russia, 
for  example,  the  Social  Democracy  would  rally  all  its  forces 
to  the  defense  of  the  Fatherland.  Because  they  are  inter- 
nationalists in  their  ideals  it  does  not  follow  that  Socialists 
must  be  anfi-nationalists.  A  normal  and  sane  patriotism, 
a  love  of  country  which  does  not  rest  upon  hatred  or  envy 
of  some  other  country,  is  no  more  opposed  to  the  wider  ideal 
of  internationalism  than  is  the  love  of  one  human  being  for 
another. 

Socialism  and  universal  peace :  The  vision  of  world-peace 
which  the  Hebrew  prophet  proclaimed  when  he  foretold  the 
coming  of  a  time  when  the  social  consciousness  of  the  world 
must  destroy  war  and  forge  its  weapons  into  tools  of  peaceful 
industry  finds  its  expression  in  the  Socialist  propaganda  of 
to-day.  Professor  Theodor  Mommsen,  the  eminent  historian, 
said  of  the  Social  Democracy  that  it  was  the  greatest  peace 
organization  in  the  German  Empire.  Similar  observations 
have  been  made  from  time  to  time  concerning  the  role  of  the 
Socialist  movement  of  the  world  in  the  great  war  against 
war.  The  Socialist  parties  of  all  the  world  are  pledged  to 
resist  the  encroachments  of  militarism  and  to  foster  the 
development  of  friendly  relations  among  all  the  nations  of 
the  earth.  This  is  not  due  merely  to  a  moral  conviction  that 
war  is  wrong  and  that  peace  is  right  and  desirable. 

The  reason  for  this  attitude  toward  war,  the  reason  why 
the  ideal  of  universal  peace  plays  such  a  large  part  in  the 
Socialist  propaganda,  is  not  far  to  seek.  In  the  last  analysis, 
the  heavy  burdens  of  war  fall  upon  the  working  class.  Not 
only  has  the  working  class  suffered  most  from  wars  in  the 
past  by  furnishing  most  of  the  victims,  but  it  is  most  injured 
by  the  heavy  burden  of  present  day  militarism.  To  divert 
this  wasteful  expenditure,  which  is  growing  larger  every  year, 


204  ELEMENTS   OF  SOCIALISM 

from  the  channels  of  waste  into  channels  of  fruitful  social 
expenditure  is  one  of  the  tasks  which  the  Socialist  movement 
is  everywhere  demanding  the  parliaments  of  the  world  to 
undertake.  What  this  would  mean  in  the  way  of  releasing 
vast  resources  for  the  work  of  building  up  instead  of  destroy- 
ing cannot  be  computed.  In  the  United  States  during  the 
thirty-year  period,  1879-1909,  we  spent  no  less  than  71.6 
per  cent  of  our  total  national  income1  upon  wars  past  and 
present  and  to  prepare  for  future  wars.  With  that  sum  set 
free  what  might  we  not  do  in  the  way  of  social  reform? 

The  basis  for  world  peace :  War  will  be  banished  from  the 
earth,  but  not  as  a  result  of  the  inspiration  of  the  minds  and 
hearts  of  men  by  some  poet's  noble  plea  for  peace,  nor 
because  some  great  artist  like  Verestchagin  paints  war  with 
so  much  terrible  reality  that  men  and  women  will  rise  up 
and  declare  that  the  time  has  come  at  last  to  beat  the  swords 
into  plow-shares.  It  will  be  banished  because  it  becomes 
unprofitable.  With  rare  exceptions,  wars  have  always  been 
carried  on  in  the  interests  of  ruling  and  exploiting  classes. 
The  hope  for  world  peace  is  inseparably  interwoven  with  the 
hope  of  the  world's  proletariat.  So  long  as  there  is  class 
ownership  of  the  means  of  production  and  class  government, 
so  long  must  the  workers  in  one  land  pile  up  surplus  products 
which  the  master  class  will  seek  to  force  upon  the  market 
somewhere  and  somehow,  even  if  it  requires  war  to  do  it. 
But  once  the  production  of  wealth  is  made  a  collective 
responsibility  the  workers  will  cease  to  pile  up  a  surplus 
product;  they  will  no  longer  be  compelled  to  invade  other 
lands  to  dispose  of  their  surplus  or  be  crushed  beneath  it, 
victims  of  the  plethora  of  their  own  production. 

The  foundations  for  world  peace  are  being .  prepared  by 
capitalism  itself,  just  as  the  foundations  of  Socialism  are 
being  prepared  by  it.  For  its  own  ends  it  has  broken  down 
many  of  the  divisions  which  kept  the  people  of  the  different 
nations  from  understanding  each  other,  and  subjected  the 
workers  of  many  lands  to  one'  common  form  of  exploitation. 
Its  methods,  resources,  inventions,  and,  especially,  its  means 
of  communication,  have  done  much  to  lay  the  foundations  of 
the  world  peace  foresung  by  so  many  of  humanity's  choicest 

1  From  a  statement  by  Mr.  Hamilton  Holt,  in  the  New  York  Times, 
September  3,  1911. 


THE   IDEALS   OF   MODERN  SOCIALISM  205 

spirits.  The  nations  have  been  brought  closer  together, 
education  has  become  to  a  large  extent  the  property  of  the 
masses,  at  least  in  its  elementary  forms.  The  workers  have 
thus  a  key  with  which  they  can  unlock  the  World's  Treasuries 
of  art,  science,  philosophy,  literature,  and  no  power  can  take 
from  them  the  power  which,  sooner  or  later,  they  will  exercise 
to  erect  the  temple  of  universal  peace. 

Immanuel  Kant,  the  great  German  philosopher,  published 
an  essay  in  1795  in  which  he  made  the  remarkable  declara- 
tion that  universal  peace  could  never  be  realized  until  the 
world  should  be  politically  organized,  and  that  the  world 
would  never  be  politically  organized  until  a  majority  of  the 
nations  had  a  representative  form  of  government.  That 
condition  has  now  been  fulfilled.  Perhaps  we  are  nearer 
than  we  think  to  the  age  when  war  among  nations  will  be 
only  a  hideous  memory.  Be  that  how  it  may,  the  ideal  of 
world  peace  which  inspires  the  modern  Socialist  is  not  a 
hope  that  is  woven  of  the  stuff  of  which  dreams  are  made. 
It  rests  upon  the  basis  of  solid  reality.  Social  evolution  has 
made  the  realization  of  the  ancient  dream  possible.  More- 
over, it  has  developed  the  class  whose  interest  it  is  to  make 
war  against  war.  "The  alliance  of  the  working  classes  of  all 
countries  will  ultimately  kill  war,"  declared  the  General 
Council  of  the  International  Workingmen's  Association  in  an 
address  written  by  Marx.  The  bringing  together  of  millions 
of  men  and  women  of  all  lands  into  the  international  Socialist 
movement  is  one  of  the  greatest  triumphs  of  peace. 

Social  peace  within  nations:  The  Socialist  ideal  of  peace 
involves  more  than  the  abolition  of  war  between  nations.  It 
is  more  fundamental,  more  inclusive,  than  that  and  involves 
the  abolition  of  social  war  within  nations.  Here,  too,  the 
scientific  Socialist  shares  a  great  deal  with  his  Utopian  fore- 
runners. The  word  "Commonwealth"  which  we  apply  to 
the  State,  meaning  common  weal  or  well-being,  is  in  itself 
an  admirable  epitome  of  a  great  ideal.  "This  is  a  place 
where  well-being  is  common  to  all,"  we  say  when  we  apply 
the  term  commonwealth  to  a  State.  We  imply  that  there 
none  is  poor  or  other  than  well;  that  the  interests  of  each 
individual  are  bound  up  with  the  interests  of  all  other 
individuals  and  identical  with  them.  "One  thing  ought  to 
be  aimed  at  by  all  men,"  says  Cicero,  "that  the  interest  of 


206  ELEMENTS  OF  SOCIALISM 

each  individually,  and  of  all  collectively,  should  be  the 
same."  But  no  modern  State  is  a  commonwealth  in  this 
sense.  Between  the  "haves"  and  the  "have-nots",  the 
payers  and  the  receivers  of  wages,  the  makers  and  the  takers 
of  wealth,  there  is  war  and  bitter  strife. 

The  modern  Socialist  cherishes  the  ideal  which  the  word 
"commonwealth"  properly  signifies.  He  believes  that  the 
noble  standard  set  by  Cicero  will  be  attained  once  the 
economic  conditions  are  prepared  for  it.  But  while  the  Marx- 
ian Socialist  thus  shares  the  hope  and  ideal  of  the  Utopian 
Socialists  of  all  past  generations,  he  differs  from  them  as 
much  as  the  greatest  astronomer  of  the  twentieth  century 
differs  from  the  poorest  and  humblest  astrologer  of  the 
ancient  world.  For  all  the  Utopians  based  their  faith  in  the 
realization  of  their  ideals  upon  some  genius,  some  scheme 
devised  or  principle  discovered.  The  scientific  Socialist, 
on  the  other  hand,  knows  that  no  society  ever  came  thus 
into  being.  He  knows  that  the  present  is  the  child  of  the 
past  and  must  be  the  parent  of  the  future.  If  we  would 
catch  even  a  glimpse  of  the  future  we  must  study  the  develop- 
ment from  past  to  present.  Lammenais  [says  somewhere, 
"If  we  separate  it  from  the  past  the  present  is  silent  as  to 
the  future."  Studying  the  evolution  of  society  the  Social- 
ist of  to-dayHnds  anew  basis  in  realism  for  his  idealism. 
That  which  first  divided  mankind  into  classes  was  property 
and  ever  since  property  has  continued  to  be  the  dividing 
force.  But  it  is  never  simple  property,  the  possession  of 
goods,  which  creates  class  divisions.  The  basis  of  feudal 
class  divisions  was  not  the  ownership  of  stores  of  things,  but 
of  the  land  from  which  things  must  be  produced.  The 
class  basis  of  our  present  industrial  society  is  not  the  posses- 
sion of  goods  and  money  by  the  master  class,  but  the  posses- 
sion of  the  means  of  production  essential  to  the  life  of  all 
society.  The  forces  of  evolution  have  created  a  class  whose 
power  is  irresistible,  namely  the  proletariat.  The  same  forces 
of  social  evolution  compel  this  class  to  accept  the  role  of 
establishing  the  necessary  conditions  for  the  realization  of 
the  ideal  of  social  peace  and  common  weal. 

For  if  it  be  true  that  class  ownership  of  the  means  of 
social  life  is  the  basis  of  class  division  and  class  rule,  together 
with  their  evil  results,  then  it  must  follow  that  with  the 


THE   IDEALS   OF   MODERN  SOCIALISM  207 

destruction  of  class  ownership  the  class  ownersh  p  and  rule 
must  disappear.  The  task  of  the  proletariat,  therefore,  is  to 
abolish  that  which  prevents  the  realization  of  the  ideal  of 
social  harmony.  Thus,  the  German  Socialists  in  the  Erfurt 
program  declare  that  the  transformation  from  capitalist 
ownership  of  the  means  of  production  to  collect  ve  ownership 
"means  the  emancipation  not  only  of  the  proletariat,  but 
of  the  whole  human  race  which  suffers  under  the  conditions 
of  to-day.  But  it  can  only  be  the  work  of  the  working  class, 
because  the  other  classes,  in  spite  of  mutually  conflicting 
interests,  take  their  stand  on  the  basis  of  private  ownership 
of  the  means  of  production,  and  have  as  their  common  object 
the  preservation  of  the  principles  of  contemporary  society." 

It  may  be  said  that  the  Socialist  movement  of  to-day  is 
vibrant  with  a  passionate  faith  in  the  ages-old  ideal  of  a  state 
n  which  men  "dwell  together  in  unity,"  as  the  Bible  has  it, 
being  made  realizable  and  attainable  through  the  working 
masses  acting  in  response  to  the  most  pr  mal  of  all  laws, 
the  law  of  self-preservation.  It  may  sometimes  happen  that 
hi  the  bitterness  of  the  class  conflict  the  ideal  is  forgotten, 
that  some  of  those  who  fight  against  the  rulers  of  to-day 
harbor  in  their  hearts  the  hope  of  themselves  becoming 
rulers  and  oppressors  to-morrow.  But  if  the  means  of  pro- 
duction and  exchange  are  made  social  property — and  that 
is  an  essential  condition  of  Socialism — the  possibility  of  class 
rule  will  have  been  destroyed.  Thus  the  organized  Socialist 
movement  represents  not  merely  the  massing  of  the  forces 
which  can  and  must  destroy  war  between  nations,  but  also 
the  massing  of  power  which  will  ultimately  put  an  end  to 
social  war  within  the  nations. 

Equality  of  opportunity:  But  social  peace  is  not  the  whole 
of  social  well-being.  It  is  at  best  only  one  of  its  fundamental 
conditions.  The  advantages  and  opportunities  which  have 
been  developed  through  the  long  centuries  of  evolution  must 
be  socialized  and  made  free  to  all.  This  is  not  the  ideal  of 
equality  which  is  fundamental  to  most  of  the  great  Utopias. 
The  modern  Socialist  does  not  look  for  equality  and  does 
not  desire  it.  Nature's  law  is  inequality — and  the  law  is 
universal  and  immutable.  As  in  the  physical  world  the 
mountain  contrasts  with  the  plain  and  the  valley,  so  there 
must  always  be  inequalities  of  human  capacity,  character  and 


208  ELEMENTS   OF  SOCIALISM 

attainment.  The  ideal  of  the  modern  Socialist  involves 
equality  of  opportunity  only,  and  that  to  the  end  of  a 
glorious  inequality,  rather  than  the  comfortable  equality  of 
the  Utopians. 

Accustomed  as  we  are  to  accept  the  idea  of  all  men  being 
born  "free  and  equal,"  the  claim  for  equal  opportunities  for 
all  seems  moderate  and  reasonable  and  far  from  revolution- 
ary. In  point  of  fact,  however,  no  more  revolutionary  claim 
could  be  advanced.  A  serious  attempt  to  realize  it  would  of 
necessity  involve  a  complete  transformation  of  nearly  every 
social  relation.  It  is  impossible  to  conceive  of  a  system 
affording  an  equal  chance  to  every  child  born  into  the  world 
which  does  not  begin  with  the  right  of  every  child  to  be 
well  born.  But  that  in  turn  involves  the  right  of  every  mother 
to  all  the  care  and  protection  which  human  power  can  give, 
all  that  science  and  social  organization  can  do  to  shield  her 
from  danger  during  the  whole  period  from  conception  to 
childbirth.  Nay,  more,  it  includes  the  equal  right  of  all 
men  to  healthy  surroundings  and  conditions  in  order  that 
they  may  develop  the  maximum  of  physical  strength  and  fit- 
ness for  parenthood  available  to  them.  The  claim  involves 
doing  away  with  the  contrast  which  presents  itself  in  the 
cruel  overwork  of  one  set  of  mothers  and  the  carefully  pro- 
tected rest  of  another  set  of  mothers.  It  involves  doing 
away  with  the  hideous  contrast  of  the  slum  and  the  mansion. 
In  a  word,  equality  of  opportunity  cannot  become  a  fact 
until  we  have  solved  the  problem  of  overwork  on  the  one 
hand  and  idleness  on  the  other,  the  whole  industrial  problem, 
in  fact. 

To  say  that  the  Socialist  ideal  is  equality  of  opportunity 
for  all  does  not  mean  that  all  must  have  identical  opportu- 
nities, regardless  of  ability  or  inability  to  use  them  advanta- 
geously. It  would  be  folly  to  waste  social  effort  attempting 
to  force  a  musical  education  upon  a  deaf  mute,  for  example, 
or  to  give  painting  lessons  to  a  color-blind  child.  What  is 
meant  is  that  every  child  should  have  an  equal  chance  to 
develop  whatever  talent  it  may  have.  The  cruel  and  anom- 
alous contrast  of  idle  men  and  toiling  children  must  disappear. 
No  moral  aspiration  must  be  crushed  by  poverty  in  a  state 
saturated  with  wealth. 

Socialism  does  not  seek  to  make  men  equal:  There  is 


THE  IDEALS  OF  MODERN  SOCIALISM  209 

probably  a  much  greater  degree  of  equality  in  natural  human 
capacity  and  talent  than  has  been  generally  recognized. 
The  trend  of  modern  scientific  thought  is  to  recognize  that, 
within  the  species,  inheritance  counts  for  much  less  than 
environment.  The  moral  frequently  drawn  from  the  famil- 
iar comparison  of  the  descendants  of  the  Juke  family  and 
the  family  of  Jonathan  Edwards  is  vitiated  by  the  fact 
that  the  environment  is  not  taken  into  account.  Suppose 
the  Juke  children  had  been  transplanted  into  the  Edwards 
environment  and  the  Edwards  children  into  the  Juke 
environment,  would  the  results  have  been  the  same?  It  is 
not  necessary  that  we  should  attempt  to  answer  that  ques- 
tion, here  and  now. 

Recognition  of  the  fact  that  a  great  deal  of  the  intellectual 
and  moral  superiority  which  exists  among  men  is  due  to 
specially  favorable  circumstances,  rather  than  to  the  inherent 
superiority  of  the  individuals,  does  not  involve  acceptance 
of  the  ancient  ideal  of  equality.  The  modern  Socialist  ideal 
is  not  a  great  level  plain  of  comfortable  mediocrity.  It 
would  not  level  down,  binding  the  stronger  to  the  level 
attained  by  the  weaker,  but  it  would  simply  strike  from  the 
spirit  of  humanity  all  that  binds  it  and  holds  it  down. 
Instead  of  placing  the  conditions  most  favorable  to  the  devel- 
opment of  special  genius  at  the  disposal  of  one  class  only,  it 
would  make  those  conditions  the  common  heritage  of  all. 

Socialism  and  the  individual:  Obviously,  a  society  based 
upon  equality  of  opportunity  as  we  have  described  it  would 
not  crush  individuality.  On  the  contrary,  no  other  basis  for 
true  individualism  is  possible.  Not  until  each  individual  is 
born  heir  to  all  the  resources  of  civilization,  free  to  take 
whatever  he  can  assimilate,  will  the  full  flowering  of  a  worthy 
individualism  be  possible.  In  the  past  Socialists  have  too 
readily  accepted  the  definitions  of  their  critics  and  regarded 
Socialism  and  Individualism  as  opposing  principles.  But  in 
truth  Socialism  and  Individualism  rightly  considered  are 
but  different  aspects  of  the  one  great  ideal.  Not  until 
opportunities  are  assured  to  all  will  they  be  secured  for  any. 
Only  that  society  which  socializes  all  its  opportunities  for 
healthful  living,  for  knowledge  and  beauty  will  ever  be  able 
to  conserve  all  its  intellectual  and  spiritual  forces  and  prevent 
their  waste.  Only  in  such  a  society  will  Life  and  Art  be  united, 


210  ELEMENTS   OF   SOCIALISM 

so  that  all  lives  may  be  useful  and  beautiful.  The  mag- 
nificent achievements  of  the  Athens  of  Sophocles  and  Prax- 
iteles were  made  possible  only  through  the  communism  of 
opportunity  which  her  vast  system  of  public  ownership 
afforded,  enabling  her  to  reach  through  her  communism 
of  opportunity  the  highest  development  of  individualism 
the  world  has  yet  known.  And  in  like  manner  we  shall  find 
that  the  highest  individualism  is  possible  only  where  the 
means  of  the  common  life  are  not  controlled  by  individuals 
or  classes,  but  by  the  whole  body  politic. 

Basis  of  the  Socialist  ideal:  The  Socialist  ideal  rests, 
ultimately,  upon  that  fundamental  principle  which  Paul  per- 
ceived, namely,  that  "we  are  all  members  one  of  another." 
We  are  social  animals,  as  Aristotle  wisely  observed.  We 
became  human  through  being  social,  in  all  probability. 
While  some  suffer  more  severely  than  others  from  the  evils 
which  arise  out  of  our  social  mal-adjustments,  yet  it  is  true 
that  we  all  suffer.  The  richest  among  men  cannot  realize 
healthfulness,  beauty,  joy  and  inspiration  in  life  in  a  world 
that  is  diseased,  ugly,  miserable  and  sordid  to  the  last  degree. 
The  good  of  the  individual  is,  happily,  not  separable  from 
the  good  of  all  other  individuals.  Fortunately,  the  fever 
which  starts  in  the  hovel  spreads  also  to  the  mansion.  Like- 
wise the  ugliness  which  stamps  the  lives  of  the  poor  stamps 
also  the  shoddy  splendors  of  the  rich.  If  there  is  one  fact 
more  plainly  evidenced  by  human  progress  than  any  other, 
it  is  that  individualism  flourishes  best  where  the  opportu- 
nities for  health,  for  knowledge,  for  beauty  and  for  joy  are 
most  widely  diffused. 

"Where  there  is  no  vision  the  people  perish."  The  Social- 
ist movement  of  to-day  is  keeping  alive  in  the  hearts  of  men 
the  vision  of  a  world  in  which  the  highast  good  of  each  appears 
as  the  first  fruit  of  the  devotion  of  each  to  the  common  good; 
of  a  social  order  in  which  community  of  interests  shall  pass 
beyond  the  boundaries  of  family,  of  city  and  nation  and 
unite  all  mankind  in  bonds  of  peace  and  fellowship.  No 
virtue  will  be  lost,  even  though  old  virtues  may  take  new 
forms.  Courage,  for  example,  which  we  have  so  long  asso- 
ciated with  war,  will  find  a  more  generous  development  in 
the  services  of  peace.  And  the  strength  and  daring  which  has 
developed  our  great  economic  forces,  heedless  of  the  ugliness 


THE   IDEALS  OF   MODERN  SOCIALISM  211 

and  suffering  they  involved,  will  not  remain  idle  and  become 
atrophied.  They  will  find  their  fullest  and  most  joyful 
expression  in  the  organization  of  those  forces  to  make  the 
world  beautiful  and  glad  and  free. 


SUMMARY 

1.  Socialism  is  essentially  idealistic,  but  modern  Socialism  bases  its 
ideal  upon  the  logic  of  evolution,  and  not  upon  the  merits  of  any  scheme 
or  plan. 

2.  Socialism  upholds  the  ideals  of  international  solidarity,  universal 
peace  and  human  brotherhood. 

3.  Socialism  aims  also  at  the  ending  of  the  class  struggle  and  the  es- 
tablishment of  peace  within  nations. 

4.  Socialism  seeks  to  establish  equality  of  opportunity,  not  equality 
of  wealth  or  ability. 

5.  It  is  only  with  equality  of  opportunity  that  true  individualism 
can  be  developed. 

QUESTIONS 

1.  How  does  the  ideal  of  modern  Socialism  differ  from  the  Utopian 
ideal? 

2.  In  what  ways  does  the  Socialist  movement  make  for  international 
peace? 

3.  What  is  the  basis  for  the  Socialist  hope  for  world  peace? 

4.  Is  it  true  that  "Socialists  advocate  the  class  struggle"? 

5.  In  what  sense  does  equality  form  a  part  of  the  Socialist  ideal? 

6.  Why  is  it  incorrect  to  -regard  Socialism  and  individualism  as 
antithetical? 

LITERATURE 

Angel,  Norman,  The  Great  Illusion. 

Kautsky,  K.,  The  Social  Revolution,  Part  II. 

Morris,  William,  and  Bax,  E.  B.,  Socialism,  its  Growth  and  Outcome. 
Chap.  XXI. 

Spargo,  John,  The  Spiritual  Significance  of  Modern  Socialism.  The 
Substance  of  Socialism. 

The  Fabian  Essays. 


CHAPTER  XVIII 

THE  SOCIALIST  STATE — POLITICAL 

No  detailed  prediction:  Socialists  are  constantly  con- 
fronted with  a  demand  for  a  detailed  description  of  the 
Socialist  society  of  the  future.  This  it  is  impossible  to  give, 
since  all  the  forces  which  made  for  social  change  cannot  be 
known.  Any  such  prediction  would  necessarily  be  pure 
Utopian  romance.  Wilhelm  Liebknecht,  the  great  leader  of 
the  German  Social  Democracy,  replying  to  such  a  request 
from  an  opponent  in  debate  on  one  occasion  said: 

"Never  has  our  party  told  the  workingmen  about  a  'state 
of  the  future/  never  in  any  other  way  than  as  a  mere  Utopia. 
If  anybody  says,  'I  picture  to  myself  society  after  our 
program  has  been  realized,  after  wage  labor  has  been  abol- 
ished and  the  exploitation  of  men  has  ceased,  in  such  or  such 
a  manner/  well  and  good:  ideas  are  free,  and  everybody 
may  conceive  the  Socialist  State  as  he  pleases.  Whoever 
believes  in  it  may  do  so,  whoever  does  not,  need  not.  These 
pictures  are  but  dreams,  and  Social  Democracy  has  never 
understood  them  otherwise." 

It  is  possible,  however,  while  adhering  strictly  to  the 
scientific  method  and  spirit,  to  set  forth  some  of  the  condi- 
tions which  must  obtain  in  a  Socialist  society.  We  can 
interpret  tendencies  in  the  light  of  known  economic  laws, 
and  determine  very  definitely  some  conditions  which  must 
exist  under  Socialism,  and  some  conditions  which  are  incom- 
patible with  it.  Social  forms  cannot  be  made  to  order; 
they  are  the  product  of  the  collective  intelligence  operating 
within  the  limits  fixed  by  the  economic  environment.  Changes 
in  the  social  order  must  come,  and  they  will  be  in  the  direc- 
tion of  further  progress.  A  knowledge  of  the  past  and  a 
recognition  of  the  laws  of  social  evolution  enable  us  to  tell 
something  of  the  future  organization  of  society.  In  a  like 
manner  Morelly,  in  1756,  predicted  the  downfall  of  the 

212 


THE  SOCIALIST  STATE— POLITICAL  213 

Bourbon  monarchy  in  France  and  the  establishment  of  a 
state  free  from  feudal  privilege,  but  he  could  not  by  any 
possibility  foresee  the  great  material  and  cultural  develop- 
ments of  the  nineteenth  century  in  all  their  bewildering 
detail,  and  when  he  did  attempt  to  picture  the  special  forms 
of  the  future  social  state  the  result  was  fantastic. 

The  next  step  in  social  evolution:  The  concentration  of 
capital,  the  ever  enlarging  scale  of  production,  the  with- 
drawal of  the  actual  owners  from  the  management  of  indus- 
try, the  education  and  organization  of  the  working  class, 
the  raising  of  the  standard  of  life  making  exploitation  more 
difficult,  the  increasing  democratization  of  the  State  and  the 
enlargement  of  its  economic  functions,  all  indicate  that  the 
next  stage  in  social  evolution  will  be  marked  by  the  social- 
ization of  the  principal  means  of  production  and  exchange. 
The  present  industrial  and  governmental  systems  are  so 
shaping  themselves  as  to  make  socialization  possible,  and 
the  masses  are  rapidly  reaching  the  point  at  which  they  will 
be  able  to  end  economic  exploitation  and  when  they  will  have 
the  ability  to  administer  an  industrial  democracy. 

Will  the  State  "die  out"?  An  unfortunate  confusion  of 
thought  often  arises  over  the  attitude  of  Socialists  toward  the 
State.  This  is  due  to  the  fact  that  many  Socialists  have 
given  to  the  term  "State"  a  significance  much  narrower  than 
that  which  it  bears  in  current  usage.  Engels,  for  example, 
writes:  "The  first  act  by  virtue  of  which  the  State  really 
constitutes  itself  the  representative  of  the  whole  of  society — 
the  taking  possession  of  the  means  of  production  in  the  name 
of  society — this  is,  at  the  same  time,  its  last  independent 
act  as  a  State.  State  interference  in  social  relations  becomes, 
in  one  domain  after  another,  superfluous,  and  then  dies  out 
of  itself;  the  government  of  persons  is  replaced  by  the  admin- 
istration of  things,  and  by  the  conduct  of  the  processes  of 
production.  The  State  is  not  'abolished.'  It  dies  out."  On 
the  same  subject,  Bebel  says:  "The  State  is  the  inevitably 
necessary  organization  of  a  social  order  that  rests  upon 
class  rule.  The  moment  class  antagonisms  fall  through  the 
abolition  of  private  property,  the  State  loses  both  the  neces- 
sity and  the  possibility  for  its  existence."  But  further  he 
says  that  "an  administration  is  requisite  that  shall  embrace 
all  the  fields  of  social  activity.  Our  municipalities  constitute 


214  ELEMENTS  OF  SOCIALISM 

an  effective  basis  thereto.  At  the  head  of  the  local  admin- 
istration stands  the  central  administration — as  will  be  noted, 
not  a  government  to  rule,  but  an  executive  college  of  admin- 
istrative functions."1  Now,  it  is  obvious  from  the  qualifica- 
tions implied  in  these  statements  by  Engels  and  Bebel  that 
neither  of  them  used  the  word  "State"  in  the  customary 
sense.  An  "administration  of  things"  would  be  impossible 
except  through  some  form  of  "government  of  persons." 

The  political  State  and  the  industrial  State :  It  may  almost 
be  said  that  within  the  geographical  boundaries  of  modern 
nations  there  are  two  States  rather  than  one.  Probably  in 
no  previous  age  has  there  been  as  complete  a  separation 
between  political  and  industrial  organizations.  The  political 
State,  the  whole  political  organization  of  society,  was  eco- 
nomic in  its  origin.  Under  feudalism  the  hierarchy  of  land- 
owning lords  directed  both  the  State  and  the  characteristic 
agricultural  organization.  Under  the  Town  Economy  the 
aldermen  of  the  various  guilds  constituted  the  city  govern- 
ment. But  when  the  democratic  movement  of  the  eighteenth 
and  the  beginning  of  the  nineteenth  centuries  destroyed 
autocracy  in  Western  Europe  and  America,  established  con- 
stitutional governments  and  broadened  the  suffrage  so  as  to 
enfranchise,  in  some  countries,  practically  all  males  above 
the  age  of  twenty-one  years,  the  lords  of  the  new  capitalist 
industry  did  not  oppose  or  directly  control  the  political 
State,  but  preaching  the  doctrine  of  laissez  faire,  proceeded 
to  organize  that  which  for  all  practical  purposes  is  a  distinct 
industrial  State  within  the  political  State,  yet  not  of  it. 
By  the  end  of  the  nineteenth  century  the  process  was  prac- 
tically completed.  The  empire  of  business,  autocratic  in 
form,  controlled  the  lives  of  the  people  far  more  than  the 
political  State,  and  taxed  them  more  heavily.  By  insidious 
means  it  succeeded  in  controlling  government  for  its  own 
ends,  confining  the  functions  of  the  political  State  largely 
to  the  protection  of  private  property.  Socialism  sees  as  the 
logical  outcome  of  this  process  the  consolidation  of  the  indus- 
trial State  with  the  political  State,  retaining  of  the  industrial 
State  the  organization  and  administration  of  industrial 

1  Engels,  Socialism,  Utopian  and  Scientific,  p.  76 ;  Bebel,  Woman 
under  Socialism  (translated  by  Daniel  De  Leon),  p.  272;  Idem,  p.  275- 
276. 


THE  SOCIALIST  STATE— POLITICAL  215 

affairs,  and  of  the  political  State  democracy  and  representa- 
tive government. 

Recent  socialization  of  the  State:  This  process  of  con- 
solidation has  already  begun.  From  the  point  of  view  of  those 
who  would  maintain  the  autocracy  of  business,  the  extension 
of  the  suffrage  and  of  popular  education  was  fatal.  The 
consciousness  of  the  domination  of  society  by  business 
interests  is  reflected  in  the  universal  social  unrest  and  the 
popularity  of  all  attempts  to  weaken  the  organization  of 
capital.  The  power  of  the  industrial  State  to  dominate 
the  political  State  has  passed  its  climax.  The  doctrine  of 
laissez  faire  has  lost  its  force  and  popularity,  and  the  State 
instead  of  being  looked  upon  as  the  oppressor,  becomes  the 
medium  through  which  people  are  attempting  to  assert 
control  over  the  industrial  order.  Partial  victories  have 
already  been  won.  The  State  is  extending  its  control  far  be- 
yond the  limits  set  by  the  political  philosophy  of  a  generation 
ago.  In  the  United  States  the  Interstate  Commerce  Act 
of  1887  formed  an  entering  wedge.  The  commission  formed 
by  that  act,  though  never  in  any  sense  radical,  has  in  many 
cases  asserted  its  power  in  opposition  to  the  interests  of  the 
railroads.  The  establishment  of  the  Department  of  Com- 
merce and  Labor  with  its  bureaus  of  Corporations,  Manu- 
factures, and  Labor,  was  an  important  step  in  the  direction 
of  socialization.  The  significance  of  this  department  lies 
rather  in  its  great  possibilities  of  further  extension  than  in 
the  work  of  investigation  and  supervision  which  it  is  already 
able  to  do. 

In  like  manner  the  State  is  broadening  its  scope  into  other 
fields.  Postal  savings  banks  have  been  established  against 
the  opposition  of  the  banking  interests,  and  the  establish- 
ment of  a  parcels  post  system  in  spite  of  the  opposition  of 
the  express  companies  seems  to  be  one  of  the  certainties  of  the 
near  future.  The  national  and  state  agricultural  experiment 
stations  and  their  bulletins  and  other  educational  publica- 
tions have  been  of  tremendous  value  to  the  farming  popula- 
tion. The  great  irrigation  and  drainage  projects,  the  build- 
ing of  thousands  of  miles  of  roadways,  the  construction  of 
the  Panama  Canal,  the  reservation  and  protection  of  forests, 
are  all  enterprises,  essentially  socialistic  in  nature,  of  untold 
social  value,  for  the  carrying  out  of  which  private  enterprise 


216  ELEMENTS  OF  SOCIALISM 

is  either  too  timid  or  demonstrably  incapable.  The  State  and 
local  governments  contribute  to  the  socializing  process 
through  free  education,  the  administration  of  institutions  for 
the  mentally  and  physically  infirm,  the  organization  of 
charities,  the  reservation  and  beautifying  of  parks,  the  con- 
struction of  canals,  the  ownership  and  operation  of  water- 
works, gas  and  electric  plants,  docks  and  ferries,  fire-fighting 
and  street  cleaning  services.  The  interest  of  the  State  in  the 
industrial  order  has  been  asserted  by  laws,  however  imper- 
fect, restricting  child  labor,  providing  for  employers'  lia- 
bility, limitation  of  the  hours  of  labor  for  women,  the  in- 
stallation of  safety  devices,  factory  inspection,  supervision 
of  building  construction,  and  so  on. 

Necessary  functions  of  the  Socialist  State:  Any  State 
must  maintain  order  and  suppress  violence.  It  must  have 
the  power  to  define  crime  and  apprehend  and  punish  crim- 
inals, and  to  restrict  the  liberty  of  those  persons  who  by 
their  conduct  would  deny  equal  liberty  to  others.  It  must 
determine  the  manner  in  which  the  political  activities  of  the 
individual  shall  be  exercised.  It  must  determine  the  rights 
and  limitations  of  the  ownership  of  property.  It  must 
enforce  contracts  and  administer  justice  in  civil  affairs.  It 
must  have  the  power  to  collect  taxes  and  use  the  proceeds 
of  taxation  in  the  public  interest.  And  it  must  deal  with 
foreign  States  in  the  adjustment  of  international  relations 
and  have  the  power  to  protect  itself  from  external  aggression. 

In  addition  to  these  general  powers,  the  Socialist  State 
must  have  the  power  to  own  and  operate  industries  and 
transportation  systems  of  all  kinds,  in  so  far  as  they  can  be 
so  owned  and  operated  to  the  public  advantage.  It  must 
have  the  power  to  regulate  private  and  cooperative  industries 
and  to  protect  the  broader  interests  of  all  the  people  against 
the  special  interests  of  individuals  and  groups.  It  must 
guarantee  a  minimum  compensation  to  labor  and  provide 
opportunities  for  its  productive  employment.  It  must  have 
the  power  to  make  and  enforce  rules  of  sanitation.  It  must 
administer  a  comprehensive  system  of  social  insurance.  It 
must  provide  full  educational  opportunities  for  all,  both 
cultural  and  technical,  and  must  provide  opportunities  for 
the  advancement  of  knowledge  through  research  and  experi- 
mentation. 


THE  SOCIALIST  STATE— POLITICAL  217 

The  Socialist  State  must  be  democratic :  In  order  to  carry 
on  these  functions  in  the  interest  of  the  whole  people,  the 
interests  of  all  must  be  consulted.  A  Socialist  State  without 
democracy  would  be  an  impossibility.  Moreover,  the  tend- 
ency qf  modern  times  toward  democracy  is  too  strong  and 
fundamental  to  be  seriously  checked.  The  State  which 
must  assume  supervision  of  industry  is  already  to  a  large 
extent  democratic  in  form  in  most  industrial  countries.  The 
most  important  barrier  to  the  realization  of  the  substance  of 
democracy  as  well  as  the  form  is  the  private  ownership  of 
capital.  The  destruction  of  capitalism  must  be  the  work 
of  the  whole  people,  and  there  is  no  reason  to  suppose  that 
the  ideals  of  democracy  which  have  become  so  firmly  en- 
trenched will  be  abandoned  when  their  realization  becomes 
possible. 

Tyranny  is  only  the  rule  of  the  ignorant  by  the  shrewd, 
and  with  universal  education  it  becomes  impossible.  Where 
men  can  read  they  cannot  be  kept  in  ignorance  of  arbitrary 
misrule.  Even  now,  the  most  stringent  laws  are  ridiculously 
ineffective '  against  the  conscious  opposition  of  a  majority, 
or  even  of  a  strong  minority. 

Meaning  of  democracy:  Democracy  does  not  mean  that 
everything  must  be  decided  by  popular  vote,  including  the 
selection  of  every  official.  In  a  real  democracy  it  must  be 
possible  for  every  voter  to  be  well  informed  concerning  the 
persons  and  measures  to  be  voted  upon.  Democracy  means 
simply  a  form  of  society  in  which  the  collective  will  can  be 
effectively  expressed  in  regard  to  any  matter  in  which  there 
is  a  conscious  collective  interest. 

Democracy  necessarily  involves  the  extension  of  the 
suffrage  to  all  adults  who  are  capable  of  forming  a  rational 
opinion  on  public  questions.  The  extension  of  the  suffrage 
during  the  nineteenth  century  has  been  one  of  the  greatest 
social  gains  under  the  capitalist  regime,  and  there  is  no 
question  in  the  minds  of  Socialists  as  to  the  desirability  of 
its  further  extension  to  include  women  as  well  as  men.  The 
line  can  only  be  logically  and  fairly  drawn  at  some  other 
point  than  that  of  sex,  as,  for  example,  to  exclude  minors, 
criminals,  lunatics,  idiots  and  aliens,  regardless  of  sex. 

Coercion  in  the  Socialist  State:  It  is  futile  to  talk  of 
a  Socialist  State  absolutely  free  from  coercion.  Freedom 


218  ELEMENTS   OF   SOCIALISM 

from  coercion  and  restraint  is  an  ideal  which  most  Socialists 
hope  may  ultimately  be  realized,  but  any  form  of  social 
organization  must  have  the  power  to  protect  itself  from 
anti-social  forces.  Even  Peter  Kropotkin,1  in  his  non- 
coercive  anarchist-communist  society  would  expel  those 
individuals  who  proved  unwilling  or  unable  to  abide  by  the 
social  will.  But  coercion  in  a  democratic  administrative 
State  not  dominated  by  class  interests  would  be  something 
very  different  from  the  coercion  exercised  by  class-ruled 
states  of  the  past  and  the  present.  Coercion  would  be  re- 
sorted to  only  to  enforce  the  carrying  out  of  the  social  will. 
Taxes  must  be  collected,  conflicting  interests  may  arise  be- 
tween individuals  and  between  groups  and  have  to  be  de- 
cided. There  must  be  the  power  of  enforcing  such  decisions 
or  they  will  be  valueless.  This  does  not  mean  tyranny  or 
the  arbitrary  exercise  of  force.  Even  under  a  State  so 
much  dominated  by  class  interests  as  the  State  of  to-day  is, 
the  average  citizen  is  rarely  conscious  of  its  coercive  power. 
Only  a  small  minority  ever  feels  directly  the  "strong  arm 
of  the  law."  In  point  of  fact  the  coercive  power  of  custom 
and  fashion  is  much  more  generally  felt.  The  great  majority 
of  citizens  recognize  that  laws  are  necessary  for  the  smooth 
working  of  the  social  machinery,  and  if  a  number  of  citizens 
do  not  approve  of  the  form  or  general  character  of  a  law 
they  do  not  refuse  to  obey  it,  but  proceed  to  agitate  for  its 
repeal  or  reform,  as  the  case  may  be.  When  laws  are  made 
in  the  interest  of  the  whole  people,  and  not  in  the  interest 
of  a  class,  as  now  so  often  happens,  conformity  will  be  much 
easier  and  more  general  than  now.  It  is  not  easy  to  see  how 
any  but  the  mentally  diseased  and  the  anti-social  would-be 
exploiters  of  their  fellows  would  ever  feel  the  coercive  power 
of  the  Socialist  State. 

Socialism  and  individual  liberty:  A  democratic  society 
would  not  enact  legislation  which  would  restrict  the  liberty 
of  its  own  members  unduly.  Men  do  not  voluntarily  forge 
chains  to  bind  themselves.  Freedom  of  movement  and 
migration  would  not  be  restricted  except  where  it  endangered 
others,  as  in  the  case  of  a  person  suffering  from  a  contagious 
or  infectious  disease.  There  would  be  freedom  from  arrest, 
except  for  infringing  upon  the  rights  of  others,  with  com- 

1  Kropotkin,  The  Conquest  of  Bread. 


THE  SOCIALIST  STATE— POLITICAL  219 

pensation  for  improper  arrest.  Respect  for  the  privacy  of 
domicile  and  correspondence;  liberty  of  dress,  subject  to 
decency;  free  speech  and  publication,  subject  to  the  pro- 
tection of  others  by  the  State  against  insult,  injury  or  inter- 
ference with  their  recognized  rights,  and  the  responsibility 
of  the  individual  to  the  State,  are  all  rights  which  a  Socialist 
State  could  not  deny.  The  individual  must  be  free  in  all 
that  pertains  to  art,  science,  philosophy  and  religion,  and 
their  teaching,  subject  to  well  understood,  though  perhaps 
not  easily  definable  rules.  Liberty  is  not  license.  The 
Socialist  State,  while  giving  full  freedom  to  the  artist,  would 
not  be  likely  to  tolerate  obscenity  in  the  name  of  art.  Liberty 
in  science  does  not  mean  that  every  amateur  biologist  must 
be  permitted  to  experiment  upon  live  animals,  or  upon 
criminals,  without  regulation,  simply  because  he  chooses  to 
invoke  the  freedom  of  science.  Religious  liberty  does  not 
mean  that  the  State  would  not  interfere  to  prevent  or  punish 
crimes  committed  in  the  name  of  religion.  Liberty  of  indi- 
vidual activity  must  always  be  limited  by  the  equal  rights 
and  privileges  of  others.  Any  other  principle  would  involve 
the  assertion  of  one  person's  freedom  and  its  protection  at 
the  expense  of  the  freedom  of  some  other  person  or  persons. 

International  relations:  The  establishment  of  a  "World 
Economy"1  must  necessarily  have  the  effect  of  softening  the 
differences  between  nations  and  of  bringing  about  something 
approaching  a  world  federation.  But  differences  in  language, 
and  in  special  economic  and  social  problems,  will  probably 
act  as  barriers  to  the  complete  merging  of  nations.  The 
development  of  arbitration,  and  the  establishment  of  the 
Hague  Tribunal,  are  indications  of  the  way  in  which  inter- 
national differences  will  be  settled  in  the  future.  Since 
under  Socialism  there  would  no  longer  be  any  object  in 
warring  for  foreign  markets,  the  chief  cause  of  present  inter- 
national difficulties  would  disappear.  There  would  be  less 
need  for  a  diplomatic  and  consular  service  than  at  present, 
but  undoubtedly  each  of  the  great  nations  would  maintain 
representatives  at  all  the  leading  foreign  capitals,  alike  as 
agents  of  direct  communication  between  governments  and  to 
give  service  to  travellers. 

Socialism  and  the  administration  of  justice :  Under  Social- 

1  See  p.  97. 


220  ELEMENTS   OF  SOCIALISM 

ism,  as  now,  justice  must  be  administered  by  the  State.  It 
must,  however,  be  further  socialized  and  made  free.  Court 
fees  and  attorneys'  fees  are  undemocratic  because  they  give 
the  advantage  to  the  wealthier  litigant.  The  delays  of  the 
law  and  the  unrestricted  right  of  appeal  on  technicalities 
are  used  to  wear  out  the  poorer  litigant.  These  inequalities 
must  be  abolished.  Law  itself  would  probably  be  simplified 
so  that  a  layman  could  understand  it,  and  a  great  deal  of 
present  law,  rendered  necessary  by  the  capitalist  organiza- 
tion of  society,  would  become  obsolete.  The  abolition  of 
private  capital  and  exploitation  would  destroy  the  motive 
for  the  greater  part  of  the  crime  of  capitalist  society  and  the 
object  of  most  civil  litigation.  The  administration  of  justice 
in  the  Socialist  State,  therefore,  would,  to  a  very  large  extent, 
be  confined  to  the  equitable  adjustment  of  the  industrial 
relations  of  individuals  and  cooperative  groups. 

Education  in  the  Socialist  State:  Free  public  education 
from  the  kindergarten  through  the  university  is  essential 
to  equality  of  opportunity.  It  is  equally  true  that  equality 
of  opportunity  requires  that  a  certain  amount  of  education 
as  a  minimum  shall  be  enforced  by  the  State.  The  matter 
of  education  is  socially  too  important  to  be  left  to  the  children 
themselves,  or  to  their  parents  even.  The  State  must  assume 
the  responsibility  of  developing  the  maximum  of  efficiency 
in  its  future  citizens.  The  Socialist  State  would  be  able  to 
provide  the  fullest  opportunity  for  vocational  training,  so 
that  the  natural  aptitude  of  the  individual  could  be  consid- 
ered and  taken  advantage  of.  For  example,  the  boy  with  a 
natural  aptitude  for  mechanics  could  be  given,  in  addition 
to  the  required  cultural  instruction,  special  vocational  train- 
ing, a  regular  apprenticeship  in  fact,  in  the  collective  work- 
shop or  factory.  The  boy  with  a  natural  aptitude  for  chem- 
istry could  be  given  the  special  facilities  best  adapted  to 
develop  that  aptitude  and  insure  his  maximum  of  efficiency 
as  a  producer.  Not  only  would  the  State  make  education 
free  in  the  sense  of  providing  tuition  and  books  without  fees : 
it  would  go  further  and  provide  that  without  which  these 
are  of  no  avail — security  of  maintenance  during  the  period 
of  education.  Establishing  its  own  standards  for  entrance 
into  various  careers  the  State  would  be  able  to  provide 
against  too  many  entries  for  certain  occupations  and  too  few 


THE   SOCIALIST  STATE— POLITICAL  221 

for  others.  In  principle  such  a  system  already  exists  in 
embryo  in  the  scholarships  offered  by  our  great  universities 
and  colleges.  What  is  needed  is  a  system  of  education  which 
will  give  to  every  child  opportunity  to  develop  its  special 
gifts,  and  so  provide  the  State  with  the  largest  number  of 
contented  and  efficient  workers. 

Altered  functions  of  the  State  under  Socialism:  Under 
capitalism  the  chief  functions  of  the  State  are  directed  to 
one  end,  the  maintenance  and  protection  of  private  property. 
Under  Socialism,  while  private  property  would  not  be  abol- 
ished, it  would  be  of  less  importance  than  now.  The  chief 
functions  of  the  State  would  then  be  (1)  the  maintenance 
of  the  greatest  amount  of  individual  liberty  compatible  with 
the  equal  liberty  of  all — in  other  words,  the  protection  of 
individuals  and  groups  of  individuals  from  exploitation,  and 
(2)  the  administration  and  regulation  of  socialized  wealth. 
The  democratic  State  is  simply  a  conveniently  defined 
organization  of  society  acting  in  a  collective  capacity  for  the 
highest  welfare  of  its  members. 

The  transitional  State:  No  new  order  can  spring  full 
grown  and  perfect  from  sudden  revolution.  Even  the  analogy 
of  the  "mutation"  theory  does  not  justify  such  a  belief. 
The  transition  is  already  in  progress.  Every  move  in  the 
direction  of  the  socialization  of  the  State,  while  not  hi  itself 
necessarily  socialistic,  is  a  part  of  the  adjustment  of  transi- 
tion. Long  before  any  nation  consciously  and  voluntarily 
adopts  the  Socialist  ideal,  it  will  have  already  tried  many 
of  its  features.  The  Industrial  Revolution  was  a  century  hi 
progress,  and  no  other  social  transformation  so  fundamental 
and  far-reaching  was  ever  before  accomplished  in  twice  that 
length  of  time.  Social  evolution  has  always  been  a  con- 
stantly accelerating  process,  and  it  seems  probable  that  the 
social  revolution  now  in  progress  will  reach  its  culmination, 
Socialism,  in  a  shorter  length  of  time  than  any  of  the  great 
social  changes  of  the  past.  This  is  probable  because  of  the 
better  historical  perspective  in  the  minds  of  those  whose 
interest  it  is  to  hasten  the  revolution,  and  the  more  widely 
diffused  consciousness  of  impending  change  and  understand- 
ing of  its  nature.  But  the  various  elements  of  the  Socialist 
ideal  will  not  be  realized  at  once,  as  a  result  of  a  single 
stroke,  a  sudden  change.  There  must  of  necessity  be  a 


222  ELEMENTS  OF  SOCIALISM 

period  of  transition  during  which  we  more  or  less  con- 
sciously shape  the  State  to  our  ideal. 

The  Socialist  State  not  static:  Even  after  the  Socialist 
ideal  has  been  to  all  intents  and  purposes  attained,  there  will 
still  be  an  infinity  of  progress  ahead  of  it.  The  evolutionary 
point  of  view  has  put  an  end  to  the  ideas  of  finality  and 
perfection.  The  social  ideal  always  recedes  with  its  pro- 
gressive realization,  and  every  step  forward  opens  new  vistas 
of  possibility  of  which  the  most  far-seeing  had  not  dreamed. 
Socialism  is  only  one  more  step  in  the  eternal  process  of 
evolution.  As  in  every  previous  forward  step,  some  undesir- 
able features  of  the  old  order  will  probably  be  carried  into  the 
new,  some  unlooked-for  evils  may  appear  and  form  the  basis 
for  an  argument  in  favor  of  the  impossible  return  to  the 
"good  old  days."  It  may  even  be  that  some  desirable 
features  of  the  present  order  will  be  lost.  But  the  result 
will  be  good  upon  the  whole  and  make  for  larger,  happier, 
fuller  lives.  Progress  will  continue.  Problems  will  be  solved 
and  new  problems  take  their  place  in  the  minds  and  hearts 
of  men.  The  ideal  we  now  look  forward  to  and  name  Social- 
ism may  in  its  turn  be  replaced  by  another  social  order,  a 
stage  of  evolution  of  which  we  can  have  no  perception  to-day, 
any  more  than  the  pastoral  Israelites  could  have  had  of  the 
modern  age  of  capitalism. 


THE  SOCIALIST  STATE— POLITICAL  223 


SUMMARY 

1.  Modern  Socialists  do  not  attempt  to  give  a  detailed  description 
of  the  Socialist  State,  but  they  do  point  out  certain  conditions  which 
must  logically  result  from  continued  progress. 

2.  The  modern  state  which  has  been  largely  separated  from  the  in- 
dustrial process  is  now  gradually  expanding  and  assuming  a  greater 
variety  of  economic  functions. 

3.  The  Socialist  State  will  be  the  result  of  a  continuation  of  this 
process  and  of  the  achievement  of  full  political  and  industrial  democracy . 

4.  The  Socialist  State  will  not  be  static,  and  the  possibilities  of  prog- 
ress are  infinite. 


QUESTIONS 

1.  Why  must  modern  Socialists  refuse  to  make  predictions  in  regard 
to  the  details  of  the  Socialist  State? 

2.  What  did  Engels  mean  by  the  "dying  out"  of  the  State? 

3.  What  significance  do  Socialists  see  in  the  extension  of  public 
ownership? 

4.  Why  is  democracy  essential  to  Socialism? 

5.  What  are  the  necessary  limitations  upon  individual  liberty? 

6.  What  changes  in  the  manner  of  administering  justice  would  be 
necessary  under  Socialism. 

7.  Why  is  free  public  education  necessary  to  Socialism  ? 

8.  Explain  what  Socialists  mean  by  the  Social  Revolution. 

9.  How  do  modern  Socialists  differ  from  the  Utopians  in  respect  to 
the  finality  of  their  ideals? 


LITERATURE 

Bebel,  A.,  Woman  Under  Socialism. 
Engels,  F.,  Socialism,  Utopian  and  Scientific. 
Hillquit,  M.,  Socialism  in  Theory  and  Practice,  Part  I,  Chap.  V. 
Spargo,  John,  Socialism,  a  Summary  and  Interpretation  of  Socialist 
Principles,  Chap.  IX. 
Wilson,  Woodrow,  The  State,  Chap.  XV  and  XVI. 


CHAPTER  XIX 

THE  SOCIALIST  STATE — ECONOMIC 

Introductory:  Socialism  is  sometimes  objectively  defined 
as  "the  social  ownership  and  control  of  all  the  means  of 
production  and  exchange."  According  to  this  definition, 
there  could  be  no  possibility  of  any  form  of  private  property 
except  in  goods  used  in  direct  consumption,  and  even  the 
apportionment  of  these  must  be  controlled  by  some  social 
authority — presumptively  the  State — in  which  the  owner- 
ship of  the  means  of  production,  distribution  and  exchange  is 
vested. 

To  state  this  proposition  clearly  is  to  reveal  its  absurdity. 
Every  simple  tool  would  have  to  be  made  collective  property. 
It  is  perfectly  evident  that  the  millions  of  Socialists  throughout 
the  world  are  not  trying  to  bring  about  public  ownership 
of  hand-saws,  spades,  market-baskets  and  wheel-barrows,  all 
of  which  are  means  of  production  or  exchange.  Even  if  such 
a  thing  were  otherwise  conceivable,  it  would  involve  such  a 
bureaucratic  form  of  government  as  not  even  the  most 
fanciful  of  the  writers  of  anti-Socialist  fiction  have  devised. 
There  must  be  something  wrong  with  our  definition,  then. 
Of  this  we  may  be  assured,  in  the  first  place  because  no  con- 
siderable number  of  rational  beings  could  seriously  desire 
the  government  to  own  and  control  all  things  which  under 
any  circumstances  could  be  used  as  means  of  production  or 
exchange,  even  if  it  were  possible  to  draw  a  hard  and  fast 
line  between  consumption  goods  and  production  goods.  In 
the  second  place,  it  would  be  impossible  to  rouse  the  citizens 
of  any  State  or  city  to  rebel  against  the  private  ownership 
of  hand-saws  or  market-baskets  in  sufficient  numbers  to  bring 
about  their  ownership  by  the  collective  authority,  the  State 
or  the  city. 

The  essential  principles  of  Socialism:  If  we  turn  back  to 
Chapter  I,  and  compare  the  definition  there  given  with  the 

224 


THE  SOCIALIST  STATE— ECONOMIC  225 

one  we  are  now  discussing,  the  difference  between  the  two 
will  at  once  appear.  That  difference  is  fundamental.  In- 
stead of  defining  Socialism  as  involving  the  social  ownership 
of  all  the  means  of  production  and  exchange,  the  definition 
with  which  we  began  our  study  defines  it  as  involving  "the 
collective  ownership  and  control  of  the  principal  means  of 
production  and  exchange,  in  order  that  poverty,  class 
antagonisms,  vice,  and  other  ill  results  of  the  existing  social 
system  may  be  abolished,  and  that  a  new  and  better  social 
system  may  be  attained."1 

This  definition  places  the  matter  in  a  wholly  new  light. 
Instead  of  owning  and  controlling  every  means  of  production 
and  exchange,  down  to  spades  and  wheel-barrows,  jack-knives 
and  baskets,  we  are  to  picture  a  State  which  owns  and  con- 
trols only  the  principal  means  of  production  and  exchange, 
and  leaves  all  other  means  in  private  hands.  And  the 
definition  considered  as  a  whole  makes  it  perfectly  clear 
that  the  means  of  production  and  exchange  to  be  socialized 
and  made  subject  to  social  ownership  and  control  are  those 
which  in  present  society  are  used  by  individuals  or  a  class, 
and  used  by  their  owners  to  exploit  the  actual  producers  of 
wealth.  Objectively  considered,  therefore,  Socialism  consists 
of  (1)  a  method — the  social  ownership  and  control  of  those 
means  of  production  and  exchange  which  are  now  used  to 
exploit  the  producers  of  wealth;  and  (2)  a  result — the 
abolition  of  various  evils  resulting  from  the  present  form  of 
ownership,  such  as  poverty,  vice  and  class  antagonism,  and 
the  improvement  of  society  as  a  necessary  consequence. 

Authenticity  of  this  definition :  Which  of  these  definitions 
is  authentic,  it  may  be  asked.  Are  we  to  accept  that  which 
declares  that  the  social  ownership  and  control  of  all  means 
of  production  and  exchange  is  aimed  at,  or  that  which  limits 
social  ownership  and  control  to  the  principal  means  of  pro- 
duction and  exchange?  For  answer  we  must  turn  to  the 
recognized  leaders  of  the  movement,  and  to  its  authorized 
statements.  It  is  true  that  in  the  popular  literature  of 
Socialism  the  former  definition  is  sometimes  used,  but  it  is 
almost  invariably  explained  that  the  social  ownership  of  such 
essentially  individualistic  means  of  production  and  exchange 
as  those  we  have  mentioned  above  is  not  contemplated,  but 
1  See  p.  5 


226  ELEMENTS   OF  SOCIALISM 

only  those  social  means  of  production  and  exchange  which 
are  owned  by  a  class  of  non-producers  and  by  them  used  to 
exploit  the  producing  class.  In  other  words,  the  context 
almost  invariably  shows  that  the  first  definition  is  used  to 
convey  the  meaning  which  the  second  definition  more  accu- 
rately expresses.  In  like  manner,  such  phrases  as  "the 
abolition  of  private  property"  are  frequently  encountered 
in  the  propaganda  literature  of  Socialism,  though  less  fre- 
quently than  formerly.  But  here,  again,  the  context  almost 
invariably  points  out  that  only  the  abolition  of  certain  forms 
of  property  is  meant,  not  the  abolition  of  private  property 
in  general.  However  we  may  criticise  these  popular  presenta- 
tions of  Socialism  for  their  failure  to  state  the  principles  of 
the  movement  with  precision  and  accuracy,  we  cannot  with 
any  degree  of  intellectual  integrity  ignore  the  meaning  which 
the  context  makes  obvious  and  assail  the  defective  formula 
merely.  That  is  pettifogging.  Nor  are  we  justified  in 
selecting  always  the  weakest  statement  of  the  case  for  Social- 
ism, the  most  vulnerable.  Socialism,  like  every  other  great 
principle  or  movement,  can  only  be  fairly  and  adequately 
judged  by  the  strongest  presentation  of  its  case  that  can  be 
made. 

View  of  Marx  and  Engels :  That  we  are  right  in  saying  that 
Socialism  does  not  aim  at  the  abolition  of  private  property 
in  all  forms  could  be  easily  proven  by  citations  from  prac- 
tically every  Socialist  writer  of  recognized  authority,  both 
in  Europe  and  the  United  States,  and  from  many  Socialist 
programs,  manifestos,  and  other  official  declarations.  For 
our  present  purpose  it  will  be  sufficient  to  quote  from  that 
classic  statement  of  the  Socialist  position  which  has  been 
the  inspiration  of  almost  every  Socialist  writer  of  consequence, 
the  Communist  Manifesto.  Marx  and  Engels  take  up  the 
charge  that  the  movement  aims  at  the  abolition  of  private 
property  and  reply  to  it.  In  quoting  from  their  reply  we 
change  the  word  "Communism"  to  its  latter  day  equivalent, 
"Socialism,"  to  avoid  confusion:1 

"You  are  horrified  at  our  intending  to  do  away  with 
private  property.  But  in  your  existing  society  private  prop- 
erty is  already  done  away  with  for  nine-tenths  of  the  popula- 
tion; its  existence  for  the  few  is  solely  due  to  its  non-existence 

1  The  reason  for  this  change  will  appear  from  the  discussion  on  p.  259. 


THE  SOCIALIST  STATE— ECONOMIC  227 

in  the  hands  of  those  nine-tenths.  You  reproach  us,  therefore, 
with  intending  to  do  away  with  a  form  of  property,  the 
necessary  condition  for  whose  existence  is  the  non-existence 
of  any  property  for  the  immense  majority  of  society. 

"Socialism  deprives  no  man  of  the  power  to  appropriate 
the  products  of  society:  all  that  it  does  is  to  deprive  him 
of  the  power  to  subjugate  the  labor  of  others  by  means  of 
such  appropriation." 

Central  motive  of  Socialism:  From  the  foregoing  it  will 
be  readily  seen  that  the  essential  feature  of  Socialism  is 
not  a  form  of  industrial  ownership  and  management,  but 
an  adjustment  of  social  relations.  The  central  idea  of  Social- 
ism is  the  class  struggle,  not  public  ownership.  The  principal 
aim  of  the  movement,  that  which  gives  it  force,  is  the  deter- 
mination to  do  away  with  the  power  of  a  class  of  non-pro- 
ducers to  exploit  the  producers.  To  accomplish  that  end 
it  is  proposed  to  take  out  of  the  hands  of  the  exploiting  class 
the  power  of  the  State,  and  that  property  which  makes  it 
possible  for  the  owners  to  exploit  the  labor  and  needs  of 
all  the  rest  of  society.  Public  ownership  is,  therefore,  only 
to  be  regarded  as  a  means  to  an  end,  not  the  end  itself. 
A  secondary  motive  of  the  movement  is  the  more  efficient 
organization  and  administration  of  industry,  so  that  there 
may  be  less  waste  and  larger  social  returns. 

The  place  of  private  industry:  Let  us  suppose  the  case  of 
a  man  owning  a  small  farm  which  he  cultivates  himself, 
and  from  which  he  manages  to  obtain  a  living  for  himself 
and  family.  We  may  consider  it  in  two  aspects,  as  property, 
and  as  an  agency  of  production.  As  property  the  farm  is, 
even  under  the  present  system,  subject,  like  every  other 
form  of  property,  to  the  ultimate  ownership  of  the  State. 
Under  Socialism  this  principle  would  of  necessity  be  retained 
in  the  organic  law  of  the  State.  The  actual  title  to  the  land 
would  be  vested  in  the  State,  but  the  individual  would  have 
a  full  use-right,  granted  by  the  State  and  protected  by  it. 

Considering  the  farm  as  an  agency  of  production,  we  are 
at  once  confronted  with  the  question,  what  possible  reason 
could  the  Socialist  State  have  for  denying  the  right  of  that 
farmer  to  operate  the  little  farm  in  his  own  way  and  to  his 
own  advantage?  So  long  as  he  did  not  exploit  the  labor  and 
needs  of  others  the  State  would  not  be  likely  to  interfere 


228  ELEMENTS   OF   SOCIALISM 

with  him.  For  the  Socialist  State  is  not  a  class  power, 
distinct  from  the  people  as  a  whole,  and  reflecting  class  inter- 
ests. It  is  the  people,  and  reflects  their  interests.  It  is  not 
possible  to  conceive  the  citizens  of  any  community  generally 
deciding  to  take  such  a  farm  out  of  the  hands  of  the  indi- 
vidual and  bringing  it  under  the  management  of  the  com- 
munity in  the  absence  of  any  sense  of  exploitation,  except 
for  one  reason,  namely,  an  acutely  felt  need  of  a  superior 
management  of  the  farm.  It  is  conceivable  at  least  that  con- 
ditions might  arise  in  which,  agriculture  having  failed  to 
such  a  degree  that  famine  confronted  the  nation,  it  would  be 
necessary  for  the  State  to  assume  full  charge  of  all  agricul- 
tural operations,  to  store  the  product  and  dole  it  out  in 
carefully  measured  rations.  This  is  not  all  likely  to  happen, 
of  course.  The  illustration  serves  to  make  clear  that  in  any 
society,  under  certain  conditions,  the  collective  need  might 
involve  the  suppression  of  private  enterprise.  But  as  a 
general  rule,  it  is  safe  to  say  that  social  ownership  and  con- 
trol will  be  substituted  for  private  ownership  and  control 
because  the  latter  results  in  the  exploitation  of  the  producing 
class  by  a  non-producing  class. 

Individual  competition  with  the  State :  It  may  be  argued 
that  our  illustration  is  somewhat  inconclusive.  That  agri- 
culture seems  peculiarly  fitted  to  individual  production,  and 
that  the  real  test  of  the  principle  we  are  discussing  must  be 
its  application  to  some  form  of  industry  that  is  essentially 
collective  in  its  methods.  Such  an  industry  is  shoemaking, 
for  example.  Let  us  suppose,  then,  that  the  shoemaking 
industry  has  been  socialized  and  is  now  carried  on  in  State 
owned  factories.  The  citizens  as  a  whole  are  satisfied  with 
the  results.  The  shoes  are  good;  the  workers  are  well  paid; 
the  consumers  of  shoes  get  better  value  than  would  be  pos- 
sible under  capitalist  production.  But  A,  who  is  a  shoe- 
maker, is  a  man  of  marked  individuality.  He  hates  his 
employment  in  the  State  factory,  where  he  is  only  a  maker 
of  parts  of  shoes.  He  wants  to  make  shoes  by  hand  in  the 
old-fashioned  way,  to  put  into  each  pair  of  shoes  something 
of  his  own  individuality.  So  long  as  he  can  find  no  one  who 
wants  shoes  made  in  that  way,  no  one  who  is  dissatisfied 
with  the  factory  product,  he  will  be  a  dissatisfied  man,  his 
individuality  will  be  repressed,  not  by  the  State,  as  such, 


THE  SOCIALIST   STATE— ECONOMIC  229 

but  by  the  general  indifference  of  society  to  his  point  of 
view.  In  this  respect  he  will  be  no  worse  off  than  are  all 
such  workers  in  present  society.  But  suppose  that  B,  who 
wears  shoes  but  does  not  make  them,  dislikes  the  factory 
product,  and  desires  above  all  else  to  wear  things  made 
specially  for  him,  things  which  express  the  individuality  of 
the  makers  and  of  himself.  If  under  such  circumstances  A 
and  B  can  agree  upon  terms,  there  is  no  reason  why  A  should 
not  make  shoes  for  B.  There  is  no  exploitation.  Such  com- 
petition with  the  State  on  the  part  of  private  producers 
might  well  be  encouraged  rather  than  discouraged.  If  the 
private  production  made  headway  faster  than  the  State 
production,  despite  the  enormous  advantages  enjoyed  by  the 
State,  it  would  mean  that  its  efficiency  was  greater.  In  that 
case,  the  State  factory  would  have  to  improve  its  methods 
or  fail  and  be  supplanted  by  the  more  successful  private 
production. 

Voluntary  cooperation :  This  principle  is  not  vitiated  by 
its  extension  to  cooperative  production.  If  A  finds  after  a 
while  that  B  is  not  the  only  person  with  a  taste  for  hand- 
made shoes,  and  that  there  are  many  other  shoemakers  like 
himself  who  desire  to  get  away  from  the  factory  to  become 
makers  of  shoes  in  their  entirety,  instead  of  makers  of  parts 
of  shoes,  he  may  undertake  to  bring  them  together  and  form 
a  cooperative  association  for  the  production  of  shoes.  If 
they  all  work  together  and  either  share  equally  the  values 
produced,  or  each  man  keeps  the  value  produced  by  himself, 
the  position  will  be  as  though  A  and  B  only  were  concerned, 
there  would  be  no  exploitation.  But  suppose  that  A 
instead  of  organizing  a  cooperative  association,  simply  per- 
suaded the  other  shoemakers  to  work  for  him  for  wages. 
Still  the  result  would  not  be  materially  different.  He  would 
not  be  able  to  exploit  them,  simply  because  they  could 
refuse  to  work  for  less  than  they  could  get  working  for  the 
State .  If  they  worked  for  less  it  would  be  because  they  valued 
the  pleasure  derived  from  the  hand-work  as  being  equal  at 
least  to  the  difference  in  their  pay.  So  long  as  the  manu- 
facture of  hand-made  shoes  was  continued  upon  a  small  scale 
the  State  would  ignore  it.  This  it  would  do  for  the  simple 
reason  that  there  would  not  be  any  popular  resentment, 
the  overwhelming  majority  of  the  citizens  being  content 


230  ELEMENTS   OF  SOCIALISM 

to  wear  the  factory-made  shoes.  In  all  probability,  the  manu- 
facture of  hand-made  shoes  would  be  regarded  as  a  fad,  and 
those  who  insisted  upon  having  such  shoes  would  be  regarded 
as  faddists.  The  private  workshop  and  the  cooperative 
workshop  would  be  under  the  supervision  of  the  State, 
which  would  be  able  to  regulate  the  sanitary  conditions, 
the  hours  of  labor,  conditions  of  employment,  and  if  neces- 
sary, even  the  wages  and  the  prices  of  the  products. 

Such  competition  not  dangerous:  But  suppose  the  indi- 
vidual or  cooperative  production  of  shoes  should  become 
popular  and  these  forms  of  production  should  grow  in 
importance  as  a  result,  would  the  Socialist  State  be  seriously 
affected?  Not  at  all.  First,  we  must  recognize  the  fact 
that  if  the  demand  for  hand-made  shoes  became  general  the 
State  itself  would  have  to  change  its  methods  of  production, 
or,  at  least,  to  add  production  by  hand  to  machine  produc- 
tion. If  the  demand  should  not  become  general  enough  to 
compel  the  State  to  do  this,  the  voluntary  enterprises  might 
go  on  and  grow  until  either  they  absorbed  the  greater  part 
of  the  manufacture  of  shoes,  or  the  citizens  decided  to  take 
them  over  and  make  the  hand  production  of  shoes  the  general 
and  dominant  method. 

In  other  words,  whenever  the  citizens  of  the  State  came 
to  the  conclusion  that  the  social  interest  would  be  best 
served  by  putting  an  end  to  either  one  form  of  production 
or  the  other  that  would  be  the  law.  It  is  impossible,  there- 
fore, to  say  that  the  Socialist  State  will  never  attempt  under 
any  circumstances  to  suppress  individual  or  cooperative 
production.  All  that  we  are  justified  in  saying  is  that  the 
fundamental  principles  of  Socialism  do  not  involve  such 
suppression  of  necessity,  and  that  it  is  a  reasonable  assump- 
tion that  in  the  absence  of  a  general  resentment  of  exploita- 
tion no  such  suppression  need  be  expected. 

Industries  specially  adapted  to  voluntary  enterprise:  It 
may  be  freely  conceded  that  there  are  many  things  not  at 
all  likely  to  disappear  altogether  which  are  admirably 
adapted  to  individual  production.  Articles  of  luxury  made 
to  meet  individual  tastes  are  essentially  of  this  order.  The 
manufacture  of  chairs,  for  example,  might  in  general  be 
carried  on  in  State  factories.  But  if  one  citizen  of  eccentric 
taste  should  demand  a  chair  of  special  design  and  make — 


THE  SOCIALIST  STATE— ECONOMIC  231 

to  be  made  from  cigar  boxes  used  by  celebrities,  let  us  say — 
it  is  more  than  probable  that  he  would  have  either  to  make  it 
himself  as  an  avocation  or  set  apart  enough  of  his  income  to 
pay  some  individual  who  would  like  the  task.  In  either  case, 
no  harm  would  be  done  to  anyone.  The  individual  would 
not  be  likely  to  accept  the  work  for  materially  less  than  he 
could  get  making  ordinary  chairs  in  the  State  factory.  If  he 
got  more,  well  and  good;  if  he  agreed  to  take  less,  regarding 
the  special  inspiration  and  pleasure  of  his  work  as  an  addi- 
tional reward,  that,  also,  would  be  well  and  good.  He  would 
not  be  exploited.  The  State  as  employer  would  stand  as  the 
guarantor  of  his  freedom,  even  if  it  did  not  interfere  between 
him  and  his  employer. 

Main  divisions  of  industry  under  Socialism:  There  is, 
then,  nothing  in  Socialism  that  is  of  necessity  incompatible 
with  private  industry  or  industry  carried  on  by  groups  of 
voluntary  cooperation.  All  authoritative  exponents  of 
Socialism  agree  that  the  Socialist  State  may,  and  probably 
will,  include  three  forms  of  production  and  exchange:  (1) 
individual  production  and  exchange;  (2)  cooperative  pro- 
duction and  exchange  upon  a  voluntary  basis;  (3)  production 
and  exchange  by  the  State.  The  limits  of  the  first  two 
have  been  sufficiently  described,  and  it  will,  for  the  present, 
be  a  sufficient  description  of  the  third  to  say  that  it  embraces 
all  production  and  exchange  which  the  people  decide  must 
be  undertaken  to  secure  freedom  from  exploitation  of  their 
labor  and  needs  on  the  one  hand,  and  satisfactory  service 
upon  the  other  hand. 

It  is  evident  that,  according  to  this  analysis,  the  State 
under  Socialism  must  assume  an  infinitely  larger  amount  of 
economic  power  and  responsibility  than  it  now  has,  or  than 
it  ever  has  assumed  in  the  past.  While  the  scope  left  for  vol- 
untary enterprise  would  be  much  larger  than  is  generally 
supposed,  it  is  nevertheless  true  that  the  great  bulk  of 
capitalist  industry  would  have  to  be  taken  over  by  the  State. 
All  the  social  means  of  transportation  and  communication; 
all  the  extractive  industries,  such  as  mining  and  lumbering; 
all  the  public  services  now  controlled  by  corporations,  and 
all  the  principal  manufactures  would  have  to  be  under- 
taken by  the  State,  subject  to  the  provisions  already  laid 
down. 


232  ELEMENTS   OF  SOCIALISM 

Use  of  the  word  "State" :  Thus  far  we  have  used  the  word 
"State"  in  connection  with  the  socialization  of  industry  in 
rather  a  loose  way  to  describe  organized  society  as  dis- 
tinguished from  groups  of  citizens.  We  have  used  the  term 
in  one  place  to  connote  the  political  organization  of  the 
nation,  and  in  another  place  to  connote  the  political  organiza- 
tion of  the  municipality.  It  is  necessary,  therefore,  to  point 
out  that  it  is  by  no  means  implied  in  the  Socialist  theory 
or  the  Socialist  ideal  that  all  economic  functions  are  to  be 
centred  in  the  political  organization  of  the  nation.  Some 
forms  of  production  and  exchange  are  by  their  very  nature 
best  adapted  to  national  organization.  Mining,  steel  making, 
and  means  of  interstate  transportation  and  communication 
fall  naturally  into  this  group.  Other  forms  of  production 
and  exchange  are  better  adapted  to  the  smaller  unit  of 
political  society,  the  municipality. 

A  centralized  State  not  implied :  It  is  impossible  to  classify 
the  various  forms  of  production  and  exchange  and  the  eco- 
nomic functions  which  arise  from  them,  and  decide  which 
will  be  undertaken  by  the  nation  and  which  by  the  State 
or  city.  Any  attempt  to  do  this  would  of  necessity  be  useless. 
Socialism  will  inherit  the  forms  evolved  by  capitalism  and 
will  have  to  begin  with  them.  Where  capitalist  production 
has  developed  national  organization,  the  Socialist  State  will 
start  with  that  form,  continue  it  if  it  seems  best  to  do  so, 
abandon  it  and  adopt  a  process  of  gradual  decentralization 
if  that  seems  best.  Where  capitalist  production  has  confined 
itself  to  local  organization  the  Socialist  State  will,  of  necessity, 
begin  with  that,  and  either  continue  it  or  change  it  for  a  more 
centralized  national  form,  according  as  experience  may  deter- 
mine. Favorable  natural  conditions  and  historical  develop- 
ment have  combined  to  make  certain  localities  the  centres 
of  certain  kinds  of  production.  One  city  is  thus  primarily 
identified  with  the  shoemaking  industry;  another  with  the 
manufacture  of  textiles;  another  with  the  manufacture  of 
paper,  and  so  on.  It  is  highly  probable,  therefore,  that  under 
Socialism,  these  cities  will  continue  for  a  long  time,  perhaps 
even  permanently,  to  be  identified  with  the  same  industries. 
Thus,  one  municipality  will  manufacture  shoes,  another 
paper,  another  steel,  and  so  on.  Other  cities  may  not 
specialize,  but  produce  a  large  proportion  of  the  things 


THE  SOCIALIST   STATE— ECONOMIC  233 

necessary  to  their  existence,  and  so  be  relatively  independent, 
like  the  great  independent  city-states  of  the  Middle  Ages. 

The  direction  of  industry:  The  State,  still  using  the  term 
hi  a  general  sense  to  designate  organized  society,  must 
assume  the  functions  now  performed  by  the  capitalist  class 
as  a  whole,  including  the  functions  of  the  entrepreneur,  in 
so  far  as  these  functions  are  in  any  manner  necessary  to  the 
employment,  organization,  superintendence  and  direction  of 
labor.  But  the  relations  between  the  State  as  employer  and 
the  worker  as  citizen  will  of  necessity  differ  greatly  from 
those  which  exist  between  the  wage-earner  and  the  capitalist 
employer.  This  fact  has  led  to  some  interesting  speculations 
concerning  the  manner  in  which  industry  will  be  organized 
and  conducted.  Some  Socialists  have  suggested  that  the 
workers  in  each  industry  will  control  that  particular  indus- 
try, choosing  their  own  superintendents,  determining  their 
own  wages  and  hours  of  labor,  and  all  similar  matters,  by 
popular  vote.  There  is  no  reason  why  we  should  suppose 
that  anything  so  anti-social  and  undemocratic  will  take  place. 
The  persons  employed  in  a  given  branch  of  industry  are  not 
the  only  ones  affected  by  it,  and,  therefore,  interested  in  its 
management.  Whether  it  is  efficiently  conducted  or  other- 
wise is  a  question  which  concerns  society  as  a  whole.  If  to 
have  everything  decided  without  reference  to  the  workers 
would  be  undemocratic,  it  would  be  equally  undemocratic 
to  have  the  workers  make  the  decision  without  reference  to 
the  rest  of  society.  The  probability  is  that  all  such  matters 
will  be  decided  by  joint  boards  composed  of  representatives 
of  the  State  and  of  the  employees,  with  provision  for  the 
arbitration  of  matters  upon  which  the  joint  boards  cannot 
agree.  Some  Socialist  writers  point  to  the  fact  that  the  labor 
unions  and  employers'  associations  sometimes  form  such  joint 
boards  to  determine  wages,  hours  of  labor  and  similar  matters, 
and  suggest  that  here  is  an  organism  already  developed  to 
discharge  that  function  in  the  Socialist  State. 

The  remuneration  of  labor :  When  we  come  to  consider  the 
question  of  the  manner  in  which  labor  will  be  remunerated 
in  the  Socialist  State  we  are  confronted  at  the  outset  by  a 
very  popular  error.  It  is  believed  that  Socialism  involves 
equal  remuneration  to  all  workers,  regardless  of  the  nature  of 
the  services  performed,  and  that  the  basis  of  remuneration 


234  ELEMENTS   OF  SOCIALISM 

must  be  the  Marxian  theory  of  value,  each  producer  receiv- 
ing the  value  of  his  product,  minus  his  share  of  the  necessary 
social  expenditures  incurred  through  the  government.  Since 
all  people  can  never  be  expected  to  produce  exactly  the  same 
amounts,  there  seems  to  be  a  glaring  contradiction  in  these 
two  principles.  So,  in  fact,  there  is,  but  the  contradiction 
has  nothing  to  do  with  Socialism,  which  is  based  upon 
neither  of  these  principles,  nor  upon  both  of  them  combined. 
Equality  of  remuneration  is  not  at  all  a  necessary  condition 
of  Socialism,  and  there  is  probably  no  Socialist  of  standing 
who  so  regards  it.  Likewise,  there  is  no  Socialist  of  recognized 
authority  who  believes  that  it  would  be  possible  to  deter- 
mine, even  approximately,  the  contribution  of  each  worker 
to  the  social  product.  The  very  nature  of  collective  produc- 
tion makes  it  impossible  to  determine  the  share  of  any 
individual  in  the  total  product.  Any  attempt  to  do  so  would 
of  necessity  fail.  Whatever  the  necessary  basis  for  a  Socialist 
system  of  remuneration  may  be,  it  is  not  the  determination 
of  the  value  of  the  individual  labor  product,  and  the  pay- 
ment of  value  for  value.  Marx's  theory  of  value,  as  we  have 
seen,  is  not  the  basis  of  an  ethical  system  of  distribution 
to  be  realized  in  an  ideal  society,  but  a  general  explanation 
of  the  workings  of  capitalist  society. 

The  Socialist  State  will  develop  existing  forms :  We  must 
never  lose  sight  of  the  fact  that  the  Socialist  State  will  not 
be  a  fresh  start  in  history,  independent  of  the  present  State. 
It  will  be  a  development  of  the  present  State,  and  will 
inherit  from  the  present  State  certain  social  forms  and  con- 
ditions. One  of  these  forms  is  the  wages  system,  and  one 
of  the  conditions  is  that  unequal  payments  are  made  for 
different  kinds  of  services.  Now,  while  it  is  quite  conceiv- 
able that  ultimately,  after  many  generations  of  experiment, 
the  wages  system  will  be  entirely  discarded,  and  production 
and  distribution  based  upon  Louis  Blanc's  motto  "From 
each  according  to  his  ability;  to  each  according  to  his 
need"  it  is  certain  that  a  long  period  of  time  must  elapse 
before  society  will  have  attained  the  degree  of  perfection 
necessary  to  the  attainment  of  that  ideal. 

The  Socialist  State  will  take  the  wages  system  and  modify 
it  to  suit  its  own  needs.  Instead  of  being  used  as  a  means 
to  exploit  the  producers,  the  wages  form  of  remuneration 


THE  SOCIALIST  STATE— ECONOMIC  235 

would,  under  Socialism,  be  used  to  give  to  the  workers  a 
maximum  of  goods,  or  their  equivalent,  in  return  for  the 
minimum  of  labor  time  compatible  with  social  well  being. 
The  ideal  to  be  aimed  at  is  approximate  equality  of  income, 
but  in  the  meantime  to  make  the  standard  of  income  as  high 
as  possible,  letting  the  actual  amount  be  determined  by  the 
free  operation  of  the  law  of  supply  and  demand.  Suppose 
there  should  be  an  over-supply  of  labor  in  one  branch  of 
industry  and  an  under-supply  in  another  branch:  in  that 
case  it  might  be  necessary  to  reduce  wages  in  the  first  and 
to  increase  them  in  the  second,  thus  drawing  some  of  the 
surplus  labor  to  the  place  where  labor  is  more  needed.  There 
is  no  reason  at  all  why  an  unattractive  piece  of  work,  tedious, 
disagreeable,  dirty  or  dangerous,  should  not  be  made  attrac- 
tive, either  by  offering  higher  wages  than  the  wages  paid  for 
other  work,  or  the  same  wages  for  a  smaller  amount  of  labor. 
In  this  manner  freedom  of  choice  of  occupation  is  possible, 
and  compatible  with  the  interest  of  society  as  a  whole. 

Here,_again,  we  must  consider  one  of  the  popular  shib- 
boleths of  Socialism,  the  cry  that  the  wages  system  must  be 
abolished.  What  is  meant  is  that  the  social  relations  in- 
volved in  the  wages  system  of  to-day  must  be  abolished. 
This  result  would  be  attained  by  the  method  here  outlined. 
Instead  of  a  money  payment  based  upon  the  cost  of  the 
workers'  subsistence,  and  as  far  from  equal  to  the  value  of 
his  product  as  possible,  wages  under  Socialism  would  repre- 
sent as  high  a  standard  of  living  as  the  collective  intelligence 
and  skill  could  attain,  and  an  approximation  to  an  equal  share 
in  the  products  of  labor,  having  due  regard  to  the  excep- 
tional services  for  which  society,  with  the  assent  of  its  mem- 
bers, freely  gives  exceptional  rewards. 

Disagreeable  and  dangerous  work:  We  have  somewhat 
anticipated  the  old  question,  Who  will  do  the  dirty  and 
dangerous  work  under  Socialism?  We  have  dealt  with  it 
from  one  point  of  view  only,  however,  and  may  now  profit- 
ably discuss  it  from  another  point  of  view.  Much  of  the 
dangerous  and  disagreeable  work  now  done  by  human  labor 
could  be  done  equally  well  or  even  better  by  machinery,  if 
we  were  socialized  enough  to  demand  it.  A  thousand  illus- 
trations might  be  cited  to  support  the  contention  of  Professor 
Giddings  that  modern  civilization  does  not  need  the  drudgery 


236  ELEMENTS   OF  SOCIALISM 

and  life-destroying  labor  of  many  of  these  occupations,  that 
if  they  were  suppressed  inventive  brains  would  quickly 
devise  mechanical  devices  to  do  the  work  more  effectively. 
When  the  British  government  forbade  the  employment  of 
women  and  girls  to  do  the  heavy  hauling  underground  in 
the  mines — but  not  until  then — mechanical  devices  were 
invented  to  do  the  work.  When  the  conscience  of  England 
compelled  the  government  to  stop  the  practice  of  forcing 
little  boys  and  girls  through  chimneys  to  clean  them,  mechan- 
ical devices  were  soon  forthcoming.  So  it  has  been  in  every 
age.  Most  of  the  dirtiest,  ugliest  and  most  dangerous  work 
of  the  world  could  be  made  clean,  pleasant  and  safe,  if  only 
the  inventive  genius  of  the  race  were  challenged  to  accom- 
plish that  end. 

Unnecessary  dirty  and  dangerous  work:  And  then,  too, 
it  must  be  remembered  that  a  great  deal  of  this  sort  of  work 
is  necessary  only  to  the  capitalist  form  of  industry.  Take, 
for  example,  the  one  matter  of  advertising:  no  one  has  ever 
computed  the  amount  of  dirty  and  even  dangerous  labor 
which  it  involves.  And  all  through  the  anarchy  of  modern 
production  runs  the  stream  of  waste  labor,  much  of  which 
is  hard,  dirty,  disagreeable  and  dangerous.  For  the  residuum 
of  such  labor  which  might  remain,  the  irreducible  minimum, 
Socialist  society  would  be  far  better  equipped  than  is  capital- 
ist society.  To-day  no  element  of  choice  can  enter  into  the 
doing  of  such  tasks  in  the  majority  of  cases,  no  idea  of  per- 
forming a  social  service.  Those  who  undertake  them  are 
helpless  and  defenceless.  When  they  fall  to  death  society 
does  not  heed;  when  they  do  not  fall  to  death,  but  live  on 
doing  the  dangerous  thing  or  the  disagreeable  thing,  society 
does  not  feel  grateful  to  them,  but,  on  the  contrary,  treats 
them  as  pariahs  and  outcasts.  In  a  society  saturated  with 
the  social  spirit,  a  true  democracy,  such  tasks  would  bring 
rich  rewards  and  those  who  performed  them  would  be  re- 
garded as  heroes. 

Protection  of  the  workers:  In  the  industrial  economy  of 
the  Socialist  State  the  loss  of  a  human  life,  or  its  needless 
impairment,  would  be  a  calamity.  Under  capitalism  the  loss 
of  human  lives  is  insignificant  in  comparison  with  the  loss 
of  dividends.  Nowhere  in  the  history  of  capitalism  has  any 
effort  been  made  to  reduce  the  appalling  martyrdom  of  labor, 


THE  SOCIALIST  STATE— ECONOMIC  237 

the  killing  and  maiming  of  the  workers,  except  under  press- 
ure, either  of  the  State  or  of  the  organizations  of  the  workers. 
Even  the  State  of  to-day,  only  partially  democratic  on  its 
political  side,  and  still  less  democratic  on  its  economic  side, 
shows  a  far  higher  regard  for  the  life  and  health  of  the  pro- 
ducer than  the  best  capitalist  concerns.  When  the  most 
enterprising  and  best  equipped  capitalists  in  the  world 
attempted  to  cut  the  Panama  Canal,  their  efforts  were 
attended  by  a  terrible  amount  of  human  slaughter,  the  life 
and  health  'of  the  workers  was  hardly  considered  at  all. 
But  when  the  work  was  undertaken  by  a  great  modern  State, 
the  slaughter  ceased,  proving  once  more  that  in  all  that 
counts  for  most,  alike  in  quality  of  product  and  care  of  the 
human  producers,  the  State,  imperfect  as  it  is,  is  more 
efficient  than  any  capitalistic  enterprise.  In  the  Socialist 
State  adulterating  the  food  of  the  people  to  the  detriment 
of  their  health,  crowding  them  into  disease-breeding  hovels, 
exposing  them  to  needless  perils  to  life  and  limb  in  a  passion 
for  "cheapness"  would  appear  in  their  true  light  as  the  most 
dangerous  of  all  practices,  more  perilous  to  the  State  than 
besieging  armies  without  its  gates.  Not  only  would  the 
collective  interest  and  intelligence  demand  that  every  possible 
protection  be  given  to  life  and  limb,  but  the  State  would, 
for  its  own  interest,  insure  every  worker  against  sickness, 
accident  and  old  age. 

Credit  functions :  All  the  credit  functions  would  of  neces- 
sity have  to  be  monopolized  by  the  State  in  the  Socialist 
regime.  The  place  of  credit  would,  of  course,  be  much  less 
important  than  now.  Commercial  credit  as  we  know  it 
would  disappear.  Credit  to  individuals  might  be  necessary 
to  some  extent,  and  this  the  State  could  easily  give  upon 
terms  which  no  private  creditor  could  give  and  make  a 
profit  by  the  transaction.  Credit  and  banking  have  never 
yet  fulfilled  their  proper  social  functions.  Credit  has  always 
been  a  means  of  oppression,  as  well  as  the  basis  for  the 
gambling  which  goes  on  upon  the  produce  and  stock  ex- 
changes. Whatever  advantage  there  may  be  in  a  system  of 
credit  should  be  socialized,  only  its  anti-social  features  being 
destroyed. 

Money  under  Socialism:  Many  of  the  older  Socialists 
argued  that  the  Socialist  State  must  abolish  money  and 


238  ELEMENTS  OF  SOCIALISM 

substitute  some  form  of  "labor  checks,"  exchangeable  for 
consumption  goods  at  the  public  stores.  Among  recent 
writers  this  view  has  been  expressed  by  the  late  Mr.  Edmond 
Kelly.1  ,  This  view  is  almost  universally  based  upon  the 
assumption  that  the  Socialist  State  must  accept  the  labor 
standard  of  value,  and  base  upon  it  an  ethical  system  of 
distribution.  To  most  Socialists,  however,  the  character  of 
the  medium  of  exchange  seems  a  matter  of  very  minor 
importance.  There  is  nothing  in  the  nature  of  Socialism 
which  involves  the  abolition  of  money.  It  is  not  at  all 
unlikely  that  future  generations  may  be  compelled  to  adopt 
some  more  stable  standard  of  value  than  the  gold  standard, 
and  to  devise  a  more  convenient  medium  of  exchange.  That, 
however,  is  pure  speculation.  All  that  can  be  wisely  said 
here  is  that  money,  in  practically  its  present  form,  will  con- 
tinue to  be  the  medium  of  exchange  for  a  long  time  in  the 
Socialist  State,  so  far  as  it  is  possible  to  see  at  the  present 
time. 

Land  and  rent :  As  we  have  already  seen,  there  would  be 
no  reason  for  denying  the  right  of  individuals  to  the  use- 
value  of  land.  The  security  of  the  individual  in  this  right 
would  be  guaranteed  by  the  State,  subject  to  the  right  of 
the  State  to  take  the  land  for  any  public  purpose,  a  right 
with  which  we  are  already  familiar,  alike  as  a  theory  and 
as  a  practice  of  government.  But  while  the  State  would  not 
interfere  with  the  private  use  of  land,  it  could  not  in  justice 
permit  individuals  to  enjoy  land  rents.  It  would  be  obliged 
to  tax  the  socially  created  value  of  land  to  the  full,  and  it 
would  be  obliged,  also,  to  deny  the  right  of  any  individuals 
to  hold  land  in  idleness.  Improvements  upon  land  made  by 
individuals,  whether  in  the  form  of  clearing  and  fertilizing 
the  soil,  or  the  construction  of  buildings,  would  be  regarded 
as  a  direct  contribution  to  the  social  wealth  to  be  rewarded 
according  to  its  value. 

Conclusion:  In  this  rough  outline  of  the  economic  struc- 
ture of  the  Socialist  State,  toward  which  society  is  apparently 
moving,  there  are  many  gaps.  We  have  attempted  to  sketch 
only  the  main  conditions  which  we  believe  must  characterize 
the  class-less  industrial  democracy  of  the  near  future.  We 
have  confined  ourselves  to  those  things  which  appear  to  be 

1  Twentieth  Century  Socialism,  by  Edmond  Kelly,  pp.  307-313. 


THE  SOCIALIST  STATE— ECONOMIC  239 

the  necessary  outcome  of  present  conditions  and  tendencies. 
Such  a  State  bears  very  little  resemblance  to  the  oppressive 
bureaucracy  sketched  by  the  enemies  of  Socialism.  Far 
from  suppressing  individual  freedom  and  initiative,  such  an 
economic  system  would  provide  the  necessary  soil  for  the 
development  of  a  noble  individualism,  and  for  those  fruits 
of  a  noble  individualism,  a  great  art,  a  worthy  literature,  a 
generous  culture  and  a  fraternal  State. 


SUMMARY  ^ 

1.  Socialism  involves  the  collective  ownership  only  of  those  things 
which  are  socially  used.     Social  ownership  is  looked  upon  not  as  an 
end  in  itself,  but  as  a  means  of  abolishing  exploitation. 

2.  Where  no  exploitation  is  involved,  private  ownership  will  probably 
remain  unchanged  under  Socialism. 

3.  The  Socialist  State  will  develop  existing  forms,  and  it  does  not 
involve  the  establishment  of  a  centralized  bureaucratic  regime. 

4.  The  Socialist  State  must  assume  a  monopoly  of  credit  functions 
and  of  final  land  ownership. 


QUESTIONS 

1.  Why  are  Socialists  indifferent  as  to  the  form  of  ownership  of  minor 
productive  enterprises? 

2.  Criticise  the  use  of  the  phrase  "abolition  of  private  property." 

3.  What  is  the  principal  aim  of  the  Socialist  movement? 

4.  Give  examples  of  industries  apparently  adapted  to  private  enter- 
prise under  Socialism.     To  voluntary  cooperation. 

5.  How  may  the  disagreeable  and  dangerous  work  be  done  under 
Socialism? 

6.  What  is  the  Socialist  attitude  toward  money  and  credit? 

7.  What  is  likely  to  be  the  form  of  land  tenure  under  Socialism? 


LITERATURE 

See  references  at  the  close  of  the  preceding  chapter,  also:  Kelly,  E., 
Twentieth  Century  Socialism,  Book  I,  Chap.  Ill,  and  Book  III,  Chap.  I 
and  II. 


CHAPTER  XX 

SOCIALISM   AND   THE   FAMILY 

Alleged  antagonism  of  Socialism  to  the  family:  One  of 

the  most  common  ideas  concerning  Socialism,  is  that  it  would 
destroy  the  family  organization.  It  is  charged  that  the 
advocates  of  Socialism  oppose  the  family  based  upon  monog- 
amous marriage,  and  that  they  hope  to  destroy  it  and  make 
sexual  relations  independent  of  any  interference  on  the  part 
of  the  State.  Sometimes  it  is  added  that  Socialism  necessar- 
ily involves  these  things,  and  the  most  promiscuous  sexual 
relations,  according  to  the  fancy  and  desire  of  the  individuals. 
This  is  the  substance  of  the  criticism  which  is  summed  up 
in  the  charge  that  Socialism  involves  what  is  euphemistically 
called  "Free  Love." 

It  is  an  old  charge  which  has  been  levelled  against  nearly 
every  great  movement  in  history  at  some  time  or  another. 
It  was  made  against  the  early  Christians.  Centuries  later 
it  was  made  against  Luther  and  his  followers  in  the  Protestant 
Revolt.  In  the  political  field  we  have  one  of  the  most  con- 
spicuous examples  of  its  use  against  the  founders  of  the 
present  Republican  party.  In  Fremont's  campaign,  in  1856, 
the  cry  of  "Free  soil,  free  speech,  free  labor  and  free  men," 
was  parodied  by  the  enemies  of  the  new  party  into  the 
insulting  cry,  "Fremont,  free  soil,  free  niggers  and  free 
women." 

Origin  of  the  charge:  Before  we  proceed  to  discuss  the 
relation  of  Socialism  to  marriage  and  the  family  we  may 
with  advantage  consider  the  origin  of  the  charge  that  it  is 
opposed  to  them  and  aims  at  the  abolition  of  monogamous 
marriage.  The  criticism  is  a  heritage  of  the  modern  Socialist 
movement  from  the  Utopian  movements  of  the  past. 
Plato's  Republic,  as  we  have  seen,  communalized  women  as 
well  as  goods.  The  two  forms  of  communism  went  together. 
It  might  almost  be  said  that  he  anticipated  most  of  the 

240 


SOCIALISM   AND    THE   FAMILY  241 

modern  theories  of  eugenics  and  stirpiculture.  In  his  ideal 
commonwealth  all  sexual  relations  are  regulated  by  the  State 
and  confined  to  persons  possessing  certain  qualifications  of 
age  and  physical,  mental  and  moral  fitness.  As  Professor 
Jowett  has  pointed  out,1  it  was  not  "free  love"  at  all,  but 
rather  a  very  highly  developed  form  of  State  regulated 
stirpiculture,  which  eliminated  personal  choice  and  desire 
almost  entirely. 

It  is  not  difficult  to  understand  Plato's  motive.  The 
essence  of  Utopianism  is  the  faith  that  for  all  the  ills  of 
suffering  humanity  a  remedy  can  be  found  or  devised;  that 
all  its  ill-working  institutions  can  be  set  right.  In  this  spirit 
of  faith  every  institution  which  has  not  worked  with  perfect 
success  has  been  subjected  to  the  most  searching  criticisms 
and  the  most  ingenious  experiments  by  Utopian  inventors. 
For  minds  of  this  type,  the  marriage  relation  and  the  family 
have  at  all  times  offered  abundant  challenge  and  opportu- 
nity. It  must  be  confessed  that,  however  sacred  we  may  regard 
it  as  an  institution  of  fundamental  social  importance,  mono- 
gamic  marriage  is  very  far  from  being  perfectly  successful. 
The  proportion  of  failures  is  unhappily  great,  so  that  mar- 
riage is  spoken  of  as  a  lottery  in  which  there  are  many  more 
blanks  than  prizes. 

Religious  origins  of  hostility  to  marriage :  So  universal  has 
been  the  recognition  of  the  comparative  failure  of  all  marriage 
systems  that  the  passion  for  perfection  has  almost  invariably 
led  to  one  of  two  forms  of  opposition  to  marriage — the  con- 
demnation of  sexual  intercourse,  on  the  one  hand,  or  sex- 
communism,  on  the  other.  This  is  especially  true  of  religious 
movements  based  upon  the  desire  for  perfection.  Thus, 
we  have  the  celibacy  of  early  Christianity  and  some  of  the 
later  sects  of  religious  communists,  like  the  Shakers,  for 
example,  and  the  sex-communism  of  the  Waldenses,  the 
Anabaptists,  and,  in  this  country,  the  Perfectionists.  No 
one  can  frankly  study  the  history  of  sex-communism  and 
its  opposite,  celibacy,  without  reaching  the  conclusion  that 
both  forms  of  hostility  to  marriage  have  commonly  sprung 
from  religious  zeal  and  fanaticism.  That  all  such  schemes 
were  inspired  by  the  purest  motives  need  not  be  denied, 
even  by  those  who  are  most  repelled  by  the  schemes  them- 

1  Introduction  to  Plato's  Republic,  1st  Ed.  Vol.  II,  pp.  145-147. 


242  ELEMENTS  OF  SOCIALISM 

selves  and  the  abuses  which  invariably  attended  them — 
such  as  licentiousness,  sex-perversion  and  self-emasculation. 

Secular  origins  of  sex-communism:  Celibacy  is  almost 
always  religious  in  its  origin.  The  early  Christian  church 
stamped  it  as  the  highest  ideal  and  marriage  as  at  best  an 
evil,  a  concession  to  the  flesh,  a  carnal  indulgence.  Where 
antagonism  to  the  family  appears  in  connection  with  com- 
munistic movements  it  almost  invariably  takes  the  form  of 
sex-communism,  more  or  less  strictly  regulated.  Rarely 
or  never  does  it  take  the  form  of  celibacy.  The  reasons  for 
this  are  not  difficult  to  discover.  All  such  experiments  in 
Utopia  making  are  attempts  to  establish  the  basis  of  a  new 
social  order  within  the  old  order.  Every  precaution  must 
be  taken  to  exclude  the  hostile  principles  and  influences  of 
the  old  order,  less  they  destroy  the  new  ideal  order  in  its 
cradle,  so  to  speak.  Private  property  and  the  inheritance 
of  property  being  so  closely  identified  with  the  separate 
family,  it  is  easy  to  understand  how  the  founders  and  invent- 
ors of  communistic  movements  and  schemes  have  almost 
universally  regarded  individual  marriage  and  separate  family 
life  with  fear  as  a  certain  means  of  reversion  to  the  old 
order  of  private  property.  Next  to  this  fear  of  the  disin- 
tegrating influence  of  monogamic  marriage  and  family  life 
comes  the  fear  that  unless  the  State  in  some  manner  controls 
sexual  relations  and  procreation,  population  must  outrun 
the  means  of  subsistence.  We  know  now,  however,  that 
population  always  tends  to  abnormal  and  unsafe  increase 
where  the  standard  of  life  is  lowest  and  there  is  most  poverty 
and  pressure. 

Modern  Socialists  and  the  charge:  We  have  considered 
thus  far  only  the  chief  sources  of  the  hostility  of  communistic 
Utopias,  both  secular  and  religious,  to  marriage  and  the 
family.  It  is  not  strange  that  many  honest  and  sincere 
men  and  women  should  believe  that  Socialism  is  but  the 
modern  expression  of  the  same  general  aims,  and  that  it 
seeks  to  abolish  monogamic  marriage  and  family  ties.  Nor 
is  it  strange  that  the  enemies  of  Socialism  in  their  defense 
of  the  present  order  should  attempt  to  create  prejudice 
against  the  movement  by  charging  it  with  that  purpose 
and  aim.  It  may  also  be  freely  admitted  that,  like  all 
popular  movements  directed  against  the  existing  order  of 


SOCIALISM  AND   THE  FAMILY  243 

society,  the  Socialist  movement  in  its  early  stages  attracted 
to  itself  many  who  were  not  really  Socialists  at  all,  but  were 
merely  in  revolt  against  the  existing  social  order,  or  some 
phase  of  it.  Thus,  in  the  early  stages  of  the  Socialist  move- 
ment, the  lines  between  the  Socialists  and  the  Anarchists 
were  not  at  all  sharply  drawn.  At  such  a  period  of  the 
movement  every  one  dissatisfied  with  existing  conditions  is 
welcomed,  and  so  visionaries  of  all  kinds  naturally  unite 
under  the  banner  of  Socialism  and  in  its  name  advocate 
ideas  which  are  not  at  all  essential  to  the  Socialist  theory 
or  the  Socialist  program.  In  this  respect,  again,  the  history 
of  Socialism  does  not  differ  from  that  of  Christianity. 

It  is  also  true  that  individual  Socialists  of  prominence  in 
the  present  day  Socialist  movement  have  speculated  freely 
concerning  the  future  of  monogamic  marriage  and  the 
family,  and  the  changes  in  them  which  must  result  from  the 
reorganization  of  society.  Among  these  we  may  mention 
August  Bebel,  the  famous  German  Socialist  leader,  whose 
views  are  set  forth  in  his  book,  Woman  and  Socialism,  and 
William  Morris  and  Ernest  Belfort  Bax,  whose  views  are 
set  forth  in  their  joint  work,  Socialism,  Its  Growth  and 
Outcome.  Only  the  most  foolishly  narrow-minded  would 
attempt  to  restrain  or  restrict  honest  thought  upon  a  problem 
of  such  vast  magnitude  and  importance,  for  it  is  only  through 
such  thinking  that  progress  is  made  possible.  At  the  same 
time,  we  must  bear  in  mind  that  the  Socialist  movement 
has  a  right  to  say,  as  it  does  say,  in  fact,  that  such  views 
are  the  views  of  the  individuals  responsible  for  them,  not  of 
the  movement.  The  Socialist  movement  must  be  judged 
by  its  mass,  not  by  a  few  individuals.  The  movement  as  a 
whole  can  no  more  be  held  responsible  for  the  personal  views 
of  any  man,  however  prominent  he  may  be,  upon  the  ques- 
tion of  marriage,  than  for  the  views  of  other  men  upon 
vivisection,  vegetarianism,  prohibition,  the  Synoptic  gospel 
or  any  one  of  a  multitude  of  questions  upon  which  men  hold 
different  opinions. 

We  need  not  pay  very  much  attention  to  that  form  of 
criticism  which  winnows  the  pages  of  Socialist  history  and 
gathers  examples  of  individuals  who  have  violated  the  ac- 
cepted code  of  morality,  and  makes  the  compilation  the  basis 
of  an  attack  upon  the  Socialist  movement  and  its  propaganda. 


244  ELEMENTS   OF   SOCIALISM 

It  must  be  said  that  there  is  not  a  party  or  a  movement  of 
any  magnitude  in  all  history  which  could  not  be  attacked 
in  the  same  way  with  at  least  as  much  success  and  justifica- 
tion as  can  the  Socialist  movement.  One  does  not  have  to 
read  far  into  the  history  of  Christianity  itself  in  order  to 
discover  evidences  of  unspeakable  licentiousness  and  lust. 
Similarly,  one  does  not  need  to  read  far  into  the  history  of 
Roman  Catholicism  to  find  the  evidence  of  degenerating  vice 
existing  among  clergy  and  laity  alike,  despite  the  most  beau- 
tiful theories,  the  vice  sometimes  throned  in  the  papal  chair 
itself,  as,  for  example,  under  Alexander  VI.  Likewise,  one 
does  not  read  far  into  the  history  of  the  Protestant  Revolt 
before  he  encounters  similar  evidences  of  vice  clothed  by 
religion.  Even  in  contemporary  life  it  would  not  be  at  all 
difficult  for  an  industrious  enemy  of  religion  to  compile  a 
formidable  list  of  deeds  of  vice  and  crime  committed  by 
individual  Christians,  Catholics  and  Protestants  alike.  But 
to  make  such  a  list  the  basis  of  an  attack  upon  Christianity 
in  general,  or  upon  Protestantism  or  Catholicism  in  partic- 
ular, would  be  puerile  indeed.  It  is  equally  puerile  to  make 
the  deeds  of  individual  Socialists  the  basis  of  an  attack 
upon  the  whole  movement. 

Capitalism  destroys  marriage  and  family  life :  That  mono- 
gamic  marriage  and  family  life  do  not  flourish  under  the 
existing  industrial  system  is  an  evident  fact  which  has  always 
afforded  the  propagandists  of  Socialism  material  for  one  of 
their  strongest  indictments  of  capitalism.  Divorce  has 
become  so  prevalent  that  marriage  as  an  institution  is  hardly 
more  stable  than  it  was  in  Rome  in  the  fifth  century.  If 
we  add  to  divorcejthe  widespread  prostitution  we  are  forced 
to  the  conclusion  that  monogamous  marriage  can  hardly 
be  regarded  as  the  dominant  characteristic  of  our  sex  rela- 
tions. 

Divorce :  The  first  serious  attempt  to  measure  the  magni- 
tude of  the  divorce  problem  was  made  in  1887  by  the  United 
States  Department  of  Labor,  under  the  direction  of  the  late 
Carroll  D.  Wright.  It  was  in  many  ways  a  disappointing 
study,  for  it  revealed  little  more  than  the  fact  that  within 
twenty  years  so  many  divorces  had  taken  place,  more  than 
in  any  other  country  of  the  world  except  Japan.  It  seemed 
to  justify  the  conclusion  that  a  majority  of  the  divorces  were 


SOCIALISM   AND    THE   FAMILY  245 

due,  either  directly  or  indirectly,  to  economic  causes,  but 
even  there  the  study  was  sadly  inconclusive.  The  one  fact 
which  stood  out  was  that  in  the  twenty  year  period,  1867- 
1886,  the  total  number  of  divorce  decrees  was  328,716.  The 
fact  seemed  alarming,  but  it  was  practically  impossible  to 
judge  its  real  significance,  for  there  was  no  way  of  telling 
how  many  marriages  had  taken  place  in  the  same  period. 
In  some  of  the  states  no  records  of  marriages  had  ever  been 
kept. 

In  the  year  1906  a  new  statistical  study  of  the  problem 
was  begun  under  the  direction  of  the  Bureau  of  the  Census, 
and  completed  in  1909.  Owing  in  large  part  to  the  fact  that 
the  methods  of  registering  and  recording  marriages  in  the 
various  states  had  become  fairly  uniform  since  1887,  the 
new  study  affords  a  much  clearer  view  of  the  problem  than 
the  old  one.  In  the  twenty  year  period,  1887-1906,  the 
number  of  divorces  was  945,625.  In  other  words,  marriage 
was  dissolved  at  the  rate  of  47,281  cases  each  year,  3,940 
each  month,  more  than  130  each  day.  The  divorce  rate 
increased  faster  than  the  marriage  rate.  One  marriage  in 
every  ten  is  dissolved  by  divorce.  The  rate  varies  greatly 
in  different  states,  ranging  from  zero  in  South  Carolina, 
which  does  not  grant  divorce  at  all,  to  one  in  every  four  or 
five  marriages  in  several  other  states.  Two-thirds  of  the 
divorces  are  granted  to  women,  the  most  frequent  causes 
assigned  being  "desertion"  and  "cruelty,"  both  of  which 
terms  are,  in  practice,  largely  mere  technicalities,  making  it 
possible  for  either  party  to  bring  suit  without  heaping  dis- 
grace upon  the  other.  These  reasons,  therefore,  are  largely 
fictitious  and  serve  to  cloak  the  real  reasons  in  a  great  many 
cases.  This  is  indicated  by  the  fact  that  few  of  the  suits 
brought  on  these  grounds  are  defended. 

There  is  perhaps  hardly  another  subject  concerning  which 
so  many  popular  generalizations  are  without  foundation  in 
fact:  the  divorce  rate  is  not  materially  affected  by  the 
character  of  the  divorce  laws;  alimony  plays  a  very  small 
part,  for  in  eighty  per  cent  of  the  suits  brought  by  women 
alimony  is  not  even  asked  for:  divorce  is  not  generally 
simply  a  means  to  "change  partners,"  for  divorcees  do  not 
marry  at  a  greater  rate  than  widows  and  widowers,  nor  does 
re-marriage  take  place  sooner  after  the  divorce  than  after 


246  ELEMENTS  OF  SOCIALISM 

bereavement,  as  a  rule;  divorce  is  not  lightly  resorted  to, 
apparently,  without  a  serious  attempt  on  the  part  of  both 
parties  to  endure  the  marriage  bond,  for  most  divorces  take 
place  after  four  years  of  married  life,  and  the  average  is 
something  over  nine  years;  the  divorce  rates  of  Unitarian 
Massachusetts  and  Mormon  Utah  do  not  materially  differ 
from  that  of  Louisiana  with  its  large  percentage  of  Catholics; 
the  "divorce  colonies"  at  Reno  and  elsewhere  do  not  mate- 
rially affect  the  problem,  for  eighty  per  cent  of  all  divorces 
are  granted  in  the  State  in  which  the  marriage  was  con- 
tracted. More  important  than  any  of  these  factors,  appa- 
rently, is  the  price  of  divorce,  the  cost  of  obtaining  it.  And 
this  fact  would  seem  to  indicate  that  if  the  cost  was  so 
reduced  as  to  make  divorce  accessible  to  all  the  number  of 
divorces  would  be  increased.  Obviously,  to  increase  the 
price  so  as  to  make  it  prohibitive  to  a  still  larger  number  of 
people  would  be  no  solution  of  the  problem,  and  would 
simply  create  another  class  privilege. 

Prostitution:  Another  menace  to  monogamous  marriage 
and  family  life  is  prostitution.  There  is,  of  course,  no  means 
of  ascertaining  the  exact  number  of  prostitutes  or  their 
patrons.  It  has  been  estimated1  that  there  are  from  forty 
to  fifty  thousand  professional  prostitutes  in  New  York  City 
alone,  and  possibly  as  many  more  who  occasionally  add  to 
their  income  in  that  manner.  Averaging  the  best  estimates 
available  we  get  an  estimate  of  300,000  prostitutes  for  the 
whole  of  the  United  States.  Appalling  as  it  seems,  this 
estimate  is  probably  not  too  high.  The  number  of  men 
patrons  of  these  women  cannot  be  less  than  ten  times  as 
many.  In  other  words,  at  least  three  million  men  are  con- 
cerned in  this  worst  of  all  forms  of  sex  promiscuity. 

It  would  be  exceedingly  foolish  to  attempt  to  ascribe  all 
prostitution  to  capitalism.  Prostitution  is  much  older  than 
capitalism.  It  existed  in  Babylon,  in  Greece,  in  Rome,  and 
all  through  the  Middle  Ages,  sometimes  under  the  guise  of 
religion.  It  exists  to-day  in  all  parts  of  the  world,  in  India 
as  well  as  in  the  United  States.  Nevertheless,  it  is  admitted 
by  all  students  of  the  problem  that  poverty  is  one  of  the 

1  By  Hon.  Elbridge  T.  Gerry  and  Police  Superintendent  Byrnes  in 
1893 — vide  statement  of  the  former  at  the  World's  Congress  on  Social 
Purity  in  that  year. 


SOCIALISM   AND    THE   FAMILY  247 

main  reasons  why  so  many  girls  and  women  become  prosti- 
tutes. The  proportion  of  low  paid  workers  who  become 
prostitutes  is  exceedingly  high,  and,  as  we  have  seen  in  an 
earlier  chapter,  every  period  of  depression  in  trade  adds 
to  the  number.  Whatever  may  have  been  the  case  in  ancient 
times  in  those  countries  where  the  prostitute  was  honored 
above  the  wife,  in  modern  society  women  do  not  voluntarily 
choose  the  life,  except  in  rare  cases.  But  it  is  not  difficult 
to  understand  why  women  become  prostitutes  when  it  is 
remembered  that  it  is  probably  true  that  there  are  more 
women  who  earn  twenty-five  hundred  dollars  a  year  by  the 
sale  of  their  bodies  than  there  are  women  in  all  businesses 
and  professions  who  earn  an  equal  amount.  The  evil  can 
never  be  remedied  until  the  economic  evils  inseparable  from 
capitalism  are  done  away  with. 

Masculine  vice:  So  much  for  the  woman's  side  of  the 
problem.  On  the  man's  side  there  is  also  an  important 
factor  of  economic  causation  to  be  considered,  namely,  the 
increasing  difficulty  of  early  marriage  with  an  assurance  of 
sufficient  earnings  to  support  a  wife  and  family.  The  crowd- 
ing of  young  men  into  the  big  cities  through  the  drift  from 
the  country,  which  is  one  of  the  most  marked  results  of 
industrial  evolution,  naturally  leads  to  the  patronage  of 
the  brothel.  The  principle  is  not  different  from  that  which 
has  at  all  times  caused  the  brothel  to  flourish  near  the 
garrison  in  military  centres.  The  income  of  the  average 
young  man  may  provide  a  comfortable  living  for  himself, 
and  even  permit  a  higher  standard  of  living  than  that  to 
which  he  has  been  accustomed,  but  if  it  does  not  suffice 
to  warrant  founding  a  family  the  result  is  almost  certain  to 
be  the  development  of  a  selfish  indulgence  which  manifests 
itself  in  many  forms — vice  among  them. 

Indirect  economic  causes:  To  these  direct  economic 
causes  of  prostitution  must  be  added  the  indirect  causes,  of 
which  the  low  standards  of  morality  engendered  by  over- 
crowding and  other  poor  housing  conditions,  and  the  forcing 
of  boys  and  girls  to  work  in  the  most  dangerous  period  of 
adolescence  where  they  must  associate  with  large  numbers  of 
older  persons  and  learn  their  ways,  may  be  mentioned  as 
examples.  It  is  not  necessary  to  go  to  the  extreme  of  claiming 
that  prostitution  is  solely  due  to  economic  causes  in  order 


248  ELEMENTS   OF  SOCIALISM 

to  show  that  economic  causes  contribute  very  largely  to  its 
existence. 

Socialist  criticisms  of  the  family:  A  candid  study  of  the 
criticisms  of  the  family  in  modern  Socialist  literature  will 
reveal  the  fact  that  most  of  it  has  been  directed,  not  against 
marriage  and  family  life,  but  against  their  abuse  under 
capitalism,  against  the  shortcomings  due  to  the  capitalist 
system.  Thus,  marriage  for  reasons  other  than  love,  for 
money,  title,  and  social  position,  has  been  denounced  as 
"legalized  prostitution,"  which  ought  to  be  abolished  equally 
with  the  commoner  and  grosser  forms  of  prostitution.  But 
to  say  that  marriage  for  money  is  a  form  of  prostitution  within 
wedlock,  that  no  marriage  is  worthy  the  name  which  is  not 
based  upon  affection,  is  not  to  attack  marriage  itself.  On 
the  contrary,  it  is  to  elevate  marriage  and  attack  one  of  the 
forces  which  militates  against  its  success.  The  Socialist 
critics  of  society  have  as  a  matter  of  fact  idealized  marriage 
and  made  that  ideal  conception  a  club  with  which  to  attack 
capitalist  society  and  capitalist  class  rule.  By  the  employ- 
ment of  young  children,  often  in  competition  with  their 
fathers;  by  forcing  women  to  leave  their  homes  and  the 
care  of  their  families  to  work  in  factories;  by  over-crowding 
in  tenements,  low  wages,  high  rents,  and  numerous  other 
evils,  capitalism  has  done  much  to  prevent  the  development 
of  true  monogamy  and  ideal  family  life. 

Such  has  been  the  substance  of  the  criticism  of  Socialists 
from  the  very  first.  Marx  and  Engels,  in  the  Communist 
Manifesto,  declare  it  to  be  "self  evident"  that  prostitution 
in  all  its  forms,  public  and  private,  the  legalized  prostitution 
described  above  arid  the  ordinary  prostitution  of  the  brothel, 
will  disappear  under  Socialism.  Passages  from  the  Manifesto 
are  sometimes  torn  from  their  context  and  quoted  in  an 
attempt  to  prove  that  Marx  and  Engels  wanted  to  destroy 
marriage,  but  the  deceitful  trick  is  as  foolish  as  it  is  dishon- 
orable. No  honest  mind  can  read  the  Manifesto  without 
recognizing  that  so  much  of  it  as  relates  to  the  family  is  a 
vigorous  criticism  of  those  evils  of  capitalism  which  militate 
against  the  realization  of  anything  like  an  ideal  family  life, 
and  a  declaration  that  under  the  new  order  those  evils  will 
vanish. 

Frederick  Engels  on  the  subject:  In  like  manner,  Engels, 


SOCIALISM   AND    THE   FAMILY  249 

in  his  little  book,  The  Origin  of  the  Family,  Private  Property 
and  the  State,  takes  up  the  same  theme  and  comes  to  much 
the  same  conclusion.  Tracing  the  development  of  monogamy 
through  the  institution  of  private  property  and  its  bequest 
and  inheritance,  he  comes  to  the  conclusion  that  the  eco- 
nomic causes  which  brought  about  monogamy  are  now  about 
to  disappear.  This  argument  has  sometimes  been  disin- 
genuously used  by  the  enemies  of  Socialism  to  show  that 
Engels  advocated  the  abolition  of  monogamic  marriage. 
Its  use  in  that  manner  is  as  foolish  and  dishonorable  as  the 
similar  use  of  the  Manifesto  referred  to  above.  The  argu- 
ment of  Engels  is  as  follows:  monogamy  arose  through 
private  property  and  the  need  of  a  system  of  bequest  and 
inheritance.  But  it  was  one-sided  monogamy.  It  applied 
strictly  to  women,  and  did  not  prevent  men  from  indulging 
in  polygamy,  either  secretly  or  openly.  Now,  the  abolition 
of  private  property  in  the  means  of  production,  which  is  the 
overwhelming  part  of  inheritable  wealth,  will  not  destroy 
monogamy.  It  will  do  away  with  prostitution,  and,  by 
placing  woman  upon  a  plane  of  equality  with  men,  will  make 
monogamy  realizable — for. men  as  well  as  for  women.  He 
accepts  Bachof en's  view  that  the  progress  from  group  marriage 
to  monogamy  was  mainly  due  to  women,  and  predicts  that 
if  woman  is  made  equal  to  man  politically  and  economically, 
there  will  be  further  progress  toward  real,  complete  monog- 
amy: "Remove  the  economic  considerations  that  now  force 
women  to  submit  to  the  customary  disloyalty  of  men,  and 
you  place  women  on  an  equal  footing  with  men.  All  present 
experiences  prove  that  this  will  tend  much  more  strongly 
to  make  men  truly  monogamous,  than  to  make  women 
polygamous."1  Engels  refuses  to  make  any  forecast  about 
the  family,  except  that  love  will  become  the  only  motive  for 
marriage  once  women's  economic  equality  with  man  is 
established : 

"What  we  may  anticipate  about  the  adjustment  of  sexual 
relations  after  the  impending  downfall  of  capitalist  produc- 
tion is  mainly  of  a  negative  nature  and  mostly  confined  to 
elements  that  will  disappear.  But  what  will  be  added? 
That  will  be  decided  after  a  new  generation  has  come  to 
maturity:  a  race  of  men  who  never  in  their  lives  have  had 

1  The  Family,  Private  Property  and  the  State,  chap,  iii,  §4. 


250  ELEMENTS   OF  SOCIALISM 

any  occasion  for  buying  with  money  or  other  economic 
means  of  power  the  surrender  of  a  woman;  a  race  of  women 
who  have  never  had  any  occasion  for  surrendering  to  any 
man  for  any  reason  but  love,  or  for  refusing  to  surrender  to 
their  lover  from  fear  of  economic  consequences.  Once  such 
people  are  in  the  world,  they  will  not  give  a  moment's 
thought  to  what  we  to-day  believe  should  be  their  course. 
They  will  follow  their  own  practice  and  fashion  their  own 
public  opinion  about  the  individual  practice  of  every  per- 
son— only  this  and  nothing  more."1 

Socialists  have  no  theories  of  marriage  or  the  family:  The 
foregoing  lucid  statement  by  Engels  admirably  epitomises 
the  position  of  the  Socialist  movement  of  the  entire  world. 
Nowhere,  at  any  time  in  the  history  of  the  movement,  was 
it  ever  a  part  of  the  Socialist  creed  to  abolish  marriage  or  to 
weaken  or  transform  the  family.  Everywhere,  and  at  all 
times,  the  movement  has  aimed  at  the  abolition  of  those 
forces  which  corrupt  marriage  and  weaken  and  endanger 
the  family.  Socialism  involves  no  theory  of  the  origin  of 
the  family,  no  theory  of  its  future  development.  All  that 
it  does  is  to  perceive  clearly  the  forces  at  work  in  society, 
forces  inseparable  from  capitalism,  which  are  to-day  disin- 
tegrating monogamic  marriage  and  the  family.  These  forces 
it  is  opposing  with  all  its  might,  and  it  may  therefore  be 
said  to  be  the  one  great  movement  which  tends  to  save  the 
family  from  utter  ruin,  the  one  movement  which  makes  for 
a  perfect  monogamy,  the  family  which  has  its  roots  in  the 
love  of  one  man  for  one  woman. 

That  the  Socialist  State  will,  for  its  own  preservation  no 
less  than  for  the  sake  of  the  children,  exercise  some  control 
over  marriage  may  be  regarded  as  certain.  It  may  be  that 
it  will  make  marriage  a  civil  contract,  compelling  all  persons 
to  be  married  by  a  civil  authority,  according  to  certain  civil 
forms,  leaving  them  free  to  add  any  sacramental  forms  they 
choose  so  long  as  they  are  not  in  conflict  with  the  civil  law. 
At  all  events,  it  seems  reasonably  certain  that  marriages 
will  have  to  be  registered  by  the  State,  and  parents  held 
responsible  for  their  children's  welfare.  It  is  also  more  than 
likely  that  the  Socialist  State  will  forbid  the  marriage  of 
persons  suffering  from  certain  forms  of  disease  and  from 

I0p.  tit.,  p.  101. 


SOCIALISM   AND    THE   FAMILY  251 

certain  physical  and  mental  defects.  So  much  seems  certain, 
because  it  is  already  demanded  by  enlightened  sentiment 
all  over  the  civilized  world. 


SUMMARY 

1.  Nearly  every  great  movement  in  history  has  been  charged  by 
its  opponents  with  attempting  to  destroy  the  family. 

2.  The  disintegration  of  the  family  is  rapidly  taking  place  under  the 
present  social  order. 

3.  Many  Socialists  have  criticised  the  shortcomings  of  the  institu- 
tions of  marriage  and  the  family  under  Capitalism. 

4.  Socialists  as  such  have  no  theories  in  regard  to  the  future  of  the 
family  and  have  no  desire  to  abolish  it. 


QUESTIONS 

1.  What  is  the  origin  of  the  charge  of  "free  love"  as  directed  against 
the  Socialists? 

2.  Discuss  the  origins  of  sex-communism. 

3.  How  does  the  existing  industrial  system  affect  the  institution  of 
marriage? 

4.  Discuss  the  theories  as  to  the  cause  of  the  increasing  divorce  rate. 

5.  What  restriction  would  a  Socialist  State  be  likely  to  impose  upon 
the  marriage  relation? 

LITERATURE 

Bebel,  August,   Woman   Under  Socialism. 

Engels,  F.,  Origin  of  the  Family,  Private  Property  and  the  State, 
Chap.  II. 

Kelly,  Edmond,  Twentieth  Century  Socialism. 

Lichtenberger,  J.  P.,  Divorce. 

Morris,  W.,  and  Bax,  E.  B.,  Socialism,  its  Growth  and  Outcome, 
Chap.  XXI. 

Spargo,  John,  The  Spiritual  Significance  of  Modern  Socialism. 

Vail,  Charles  H.,  Modern  Socialism. 


PART  IV 
THE  SOCIALIST  MOVEMENT 


CHAPTER  XXI 

THE   RISE   AND   GROWTH   OF   MODERN   SOCIALISM 

The  background:  The  period  from  1830  to  1848  witnessed 
the  beginnings  of  the  political  activity  of  the  proletariat. 
Capitalism  was  now  fully  established.  The  accession  of  the 
"citizen  king"  in  1830  marked  the  final  triumph  of  the 
bourgeoisie  in  France,  and  the  Reform  Bill  of  1832  destroyed 
the  power  of  the  land-owning  aristocracy  in  England.  As 
the  old  class  struggle  ended  the  newer  struggle  between  the 
capitalist  class  and  the  proletariat  assumed  first  importance. 

In  England  this  new  struggle  at  first  took  the  form  of  an 
agitation  for  political  democracy.  The  "Working  Men's 
Association  was  formed  to  carry  on  the  agitation  for  the 
extension  of  the  franchise  to  the  working  class.  In  1838 
this  association,  aided  by  some  radical  members  of  the  House 
of  Commons,  drew  up  a  bill,  the  so-called  "People's  Charter," 
from  which  the  movement  derived  the  name  Chartism. 
Great  mass  meetings  were  held  in  all  parts  of  Great  Britain, 
newspapers  were  established,  the  country  was  flooded  with 
pamphlets  and  broadsides,  and  hundreds  of  thousands  of 
names  were  signed  to  parliamentary  petitions.  In  a  very 
few  years  the  Charter  had  undoubtedly  won  the  moral 
support  of  a  majority  of  the  British  people,  but  the  follies 
of  the  leaders  of  the  movement  and  their  petty  quarrels 
and  jealousies  caused  many  of  its  adherents  to  forsake  it. 
Finally,  the  movement  became  merged  into  the  general  move- 
ment of  Liberalism. 

In  France  the  class  conscious  portion  of  the  proletariat 
supported  Louis  Blanc  in  his  agitation  for  the  establishment 
of  "social  workshops,"  to  be  established  by  the  State  and 
operated  and  managed  by  the  workers  themselves  under  the 
general  supervision  of  the  State.  Unlike  many  other 
Utopians,  Blanc  placed  no  reliance  upon  private  capital. 
He  regarded  democracy  as  the  first  essential  of  social  regenera- 

255 


256  ELEMENTS   OF   SOCIALISM 

tion.  His  social  workshops  were  to  develop  through  their 
superior  merit  until  they  absorbed  the  whole  of  capitalist 
industry. 

Another  movement  of  a  broader  character,  but  less  defi- 
nitely proletarian,  had  its  roots  in  Mazzini's  work  for  Italian 
unity  and  freedom.  Following  the  Young  Italy  movement 
came  the  Young  Europe  Association,  founded  by  some  of 
Mazzini's  followers.  As  an  offshoot  of  this  movement  some 
German  refugees  in  Paris  formed  the  Young  Germany 
Society.  This  society,  under  the  various  names  of  "League 
of  the  Just,"  "League  of  the  Righteous,"  "Communist 
League"  and  "International  Alliance"  was  more  intimately 
connected  with  the  later  Socialist  movement  than  any  of  the 
other  organizations  of  the  period.  It  was  for  the  Communist 
League  that  Marx  and  Engels  wrote  the  Communist  Mani- 
festo. 

Conditions  in  1847:  By  the  year  1847  Utopianism  had 
passed  the  climax  of  its  strength.  Owenism  had  never  recov- 
ered from  the  failure  of  the  experiments  made  in  England 
and  America,  and  was  now  an  unimportant  sect.  Saint- 
Simonism  had  degenerated  under  the  leadership  of  Bazard 
into  an  indecent  travesty  of  Saint-Simon's  ideas.  Fourier- 
ism,  discouraged  by  the  catastrophic  ending  of  the  Brook 
Farm  experiment,  was  fast  losing  ground.  The  only  com- 
munistic movements  which  possessed  real  vitality  were 
those  represented  by  Cabet  and  Wilhelm  Weitling.  The 
Communism  of  both  was  essentially  Utopian,  but  it  was 
distinctly  proletarian.  Its  basis  was  the  crude  class  doctrine 
of  the  "Rights  of  Labor,"  and  its  appeal  was  based  upon 
Brotherhood,  Justice,  Order  and  Economy. 

We  have  already  considered  Cabet  in  another  chapter.1 
Weitling  alone  among  the  Utopians  was  a  man  of  the  people, 
a  true  proletarian.  By  trade  a  tailor,  during  his  wanderjahre 
he  had  come  into  contact  with  the  Communist  movement, 
and  in  1838  published  his  first  book,  The  World  As  It  Is 
and  As  It  Might  Be.  This  was  followed  four  years  later  by 
The  Guaranties  of  Harmony  and  Freedom.  Weitling  was  a 
proletarian  agitator  of  the  highest  type,  and  in  some  features 
of  his  theory  comes  very  close  to  some  of  the  ideas  of  Marxian 
Socialism.  He  may  be  considered  the  personal  connecting 

»  See  p.  197. 


RISE  AND  GROWTH  OF  MODERN  SOCIALISM      257 

link  between  the  Utopian  movements  and  modern,  scientific 
Socialism. 

With  Utopianism  moribund,  or  being  transformed  into  a 
proletarian  movement,  and  the  working  class  stimulated  to 
political  activity,  the  materials  were  ready  for  the  develop- 
ment of  a  new  and  unified  Socialist  movement.  This  task 
was  accomplished  in  the  next  generation,  and  the  dominant 
personality  in  the  new  phase  was  Karl  Marx. 

Biographical:  Marx  was  born  at  Trier,  Germany,  in  1818. 
His  father,  Heinrich  Marx,  was  a  lawyer  of  prominence  and 
comfortable  fortune  who  held  a  government  position.  A 
Jew,  the  descendant  of  a  long  line  of  rabbis,  he  became  a 
Christian  in  1824,  six  years  after  the  birth  of  his  famous  son. 
Karl  Marx  studied  philosophy  and  law  at  Bonn  and  Berlin 
and  received  his  doctorate  at  Jena  in  1841.  After  the  sup- 
pression of  a  radical  daily  newspaper  of  which  he  was  editor, 
he  went  in  1843  to  Paris,  where  he  joined  a  remarkable  group 
of  radicals,  among  whom  were  Heine,  the  poet,  the  Anarchists 
Proudhon  and  Bakunin,  and  the  Utopian  Cabet.  At  this 
period  Marx  became  interested  in  the  teachings  of  Saint- 
Simon. 

It  was  in  Paris,  also,  that  Marx  first  met,  in  1844,  the  man 
whose  life  was  destined  to  be  inseparably  linked  to  his  own, 
Frederick  Engels.  Two  years  the  junior  of  Marx,  Engels 
was  the  son  of  a  wealthy  German  manufacturer  who  had 
large  interests  in  Manchester,  England,  to  which  Engels 
eventually  succeeded.  The  friendship  and  literary  partner- 
ship of  Marx  and  Engels  lasted  until  the  death  of  Marx  in 
London  in  1883,  and  was  never  clouded  by  a  single  quarrel 
or  unpleasant  difference  of  opinion.  In  1845  the  two  friends 
went  to  Brussels  and  there  organized  the  German  Working- 
men's  Club,  a  sort  of  labor  union,  one  of  the  members  being 
Wilhelm  Weitling. 

In  1847  Marx  and  Engels  and  the  whole  Brussels  group 
became  affiliated  with  the  International  Alliance  and  pro- 
ceeded to  bring  about  its  reorganization.  They  had  joined 
for  this  purpose  at  the  request  of  a  few  of  the  more  active 
spirits  in  the  movement.  A  congress  was  called  in  London 
at  which  Marx  was  represented  by  Engels  and  Wilhelm 
Wolff,  one  of  their  staunchest  supporters.  On  behalf  of 
Marx,  Engels  and  Wolff  outlined  a  program  which  was 


258  ELEMENTS   OF  SOCIALISM 

approved,  despite  the  bitter  opposition  of  Weitling  and  his 
followers.  These  latter  were  thoroughly  imbued  with  the 
conspiratory  methods  which  had  hitherto  prevailed.  They 
believed  that  secret  organization  and  sudden  uprisings  were 
the  only  fruitful  methods  of  working  class  action.  The 
Marxian  program,  on  the  other  hand,  discouraged  these  and 
advocated  open  agitation  and  the  building  up  of  a  great 
political  party  of  the  proletariat.  Engels  and  Wolff  having 
succeeded,  a  resolution  was  passed  asking  Marx  and  Engels 
to  formulate  a  declaration  of  principles  and  a  practical 
program  for  the  movement. 

At  a  second  meeting  of  the  congress,  in  November,  1847, 
Marx  was  present  and  read  the  program  and  declaration  of 
principles  which  he  and  Engels  had  prepared.  The  whole 
was  a  draft  of  the  Communist  Manifesto,  and  was  enthusi- 
astically adopted.  This  made  Marx  and  Engels  the  acknowl- 
edged leaders  of  the  movement. 

The  subsequent  life  of  Marx  and  Engels  was  devoted  to  the 
Socialist  movement,  to  the  formulation  of  its  theoretical 
basis  and  its  tactics  and  policies.  Marx  published  his 
Contribution  to  the  Critique  of  Political  Economy  in  1859, 
the  year  in  which  Darwin's  Origin  of  Species  appeared.  The 
first  volume  of  Das  Kapital  appeared  in  1867.  Poverty, 
the  exigencies  of  the  movement  and  ill-health  combined  to 
prevent  Marx  from  finishing  the  two  remaining  volumes, 
but  after  his  death  the  manuscripts  were  completed  and 
edited  by  Engels,  who  published  the  final  volume  just  before 
his  death  in  1895. 

The  Communist  Manifesto:  The  new  Marxian  program 
was  complete  in  January,  1848,  and  published  in  February. 
Its  publication  is  usually  considered  as  marking  the  begin- 
ning of  the  modern  movement.  The  Manifesto  was  the  first 
clear  and  definite  statement  of  scientific  Socialism.  Its 
twenty-five  pages  of  vigorous  and  incisive  German  sets  forth 
the  history  and  character  of  class  struggles,  the  character 
of  modern  social  classes,  and  the  position  of  capitalism  in 
industrial  evolution.  All  this  is  interpreted  as  pointing  out 
that  the  next  stage  in  evolution  will  be  characterized  by  the 
abolition  of  private  capital  and  the  socialization  of  produc- 
tion and  exchange. 

The  Manifesto  was  a  rallying  call  to  the  proletariat,  the 


RISE  AND  GROWTH  OF  MODERN  SOCIALISM      259 

workers'  Declaration  of  Independence.  Its  inspiring  keynote 
"Workingmen  of  all  countries,  Unite!"  has  been  the  watch- 
word of  Socialism  from  that  day  to  this.  The  Manifesto 
put  an  end  to  Utopian  Socialism.  The  ideological  conception 
of  society  with  its  resulting  belief  that  capitalism  must  be 
regarded  as  a  wicked  invention  by  greedy  and  cruel  men,  to 
be  destroyed  by  triumphant  virtue,  was  effectually  destroyed. 
The  Utopian  viewpoint  could  not  again  prevail  as  a  basis  for 
Socialist  agitation,  except  locally  and  for  very  brief  periods. 

But  the  proletariat  was  not  yet  ready  to  unite  upon  the 
great  scale  Marx  and  Engels  had  hoped  for.  Although  they 
were  not  so  sanguine  as  many  of  their  followers,  Marx  and 
Engels  underestimated  the  shortcomings  of  the  proletariat 
and  the  forces  of  division.  It  is  only  after  sixty  years  that 
a  new  generation  is  actually  answering  the  rallying  cry  upon 
a  grand  scale  and  working  effectively  along  the  lines  laid 
down  by  Marx  and  Engels  in  1848. 

*  'Communism"  and  "Socialism":  The  use  of  the  word 
"Communist"  by  Marx  and  his  followers  needs  some  explana- 
tion. In  1848,  the  word  "Socialism,"  which  had  been  first 
used  to  describe  the  theories  of  Robert  Owen,  was  used  to 
describe  all  forms  of  the  decadent  Utopianism.  Marx  and 
Engels  desired  to  wean  the  movement  entirely  away  from 
Utopianism.  This  fact  alone  would  have  caused  them  to 
avoid  the  use  of  the  word  "Socialism"  in  connection  with 
their  theories.  On  the  other  hand,  the  working  class  ele- 
ments to  unite  which  the  Manifesto  was  written  were  all 
known  as  Communists.  The  word  "Communism"  was  there- 
fore the  logical  one  to  use  to  describe  the  aims  of  the  move- 
ment. Since  that  time,  however,  the  meanings  of  the  words 
Communism  and  Socialism  have  been  exactly  reversed,  and 
the  latter  word  is  used  to  describe  the  movement  based 
upon  the  teachings  of  Marx,  while  the  former  word  signifies 
the  common  ownership  of  all  wealth,  both  in  consumption 
and  production  goods.  The  most  superficial  examination  of 
the  Manifesto  will  show  that  Marx  and  Engels  were  not 
Communists  in  the  modern  sense  of  the  word,  but  Socialists. 

The  revolution  of  1848:  The  day  on  which  the  Communist 
Manifesto  was  published  in  London  saw  the  outbreak  of 
revolution  in  Paris.  The  social  discontent  which  Marx  and 
his  friends  had  sensed,  and  which  many  of  them  regarded  as 


260  ELEMENTS   OF  SOCIALISM 

the  sign  of  the  coming  of  an  immediate  Social  Revolution, 
broke  forth  in  open  revolt.  Louis  Philippe  was  driven  from 
the  throne  and  a  Republic  established.  Nor  was  France  alone 
affected.  All  Central  and  Western  Europe  felt  the  force 
of  revolutionary  activity,  and  it  is  not  surprising  that  some 
of  the  Socialists  believed  that  the  Social  Revolution  had  come. 
But  when  the  excitement  was  over  and  the  time  for  recon- 
struction had  arrived  it  was  soon  discovered  that  the  Revolu- 
tion was  only  the  revolt  of  the  bourgeoisie  against  the 
survivals  of  feudal  restrictions.  A  real  impetus  was  given 
to  the  democratic  movement,  however,  and  to  that  extent 
the  proletariat  was  benefited.  But  at  the  end  of  the  struggle 
capitalism  was  stronger  than  ever  before,  the  proletarian 
leaders  were  driven  to  exile  in  most  cases,  and  the  new 
movement  seemed  to  have  been  crushed  at  its  very  inception. 

As  a  concession  to  the  proletariat,  and  in  return  for  their 
assistance,  Louis  Blanc  and  two  or  three  other  leaders  of 
the  working  class  were  given  places  in  the  French  Provisional 
Government,  and  Blanc  at  once  pressed  his  plan  for  the 
establishment  of  social  workshops.  So  great  was  his  follow- 
ing that  the  government  did  not  dare  to  oppose  him  openly. 
National  workshops  were  accordingly  established,  but  in 
such  a  manner  that  Blanc  denounced  them  and  disclaimed 
all  responsibility  for  them.  Instead  of  employing  skilled 
workers  at  productive  work,  the  workshops  were  filled  with 
a  mob  of  incompetents  who  could  not  otherwise  find  employ- 
ment and  were  given  unproductive  labor.  The  result  of  the 
subsequent  government  investigation,  and  the  confession  of 
the  director  of  the  workshops,  prove  that  they  were  estab- 
lished with  the  deliberate  purpose  of  discrediting  Blanc  and 
his  theories. 

The  reaction:  The  uprisings  of  1848  had  accomplished 
little  from  the  point  of  view  of  the  proletariat,  and  the  next 
few  years  record  very  little  of  interest  except  the  literary 
work  of  Marx  and  the  preparation  of  the  leaders  of  the  later 
movement.  Most  of  the  revolutionary  leaders  of  France  and 
Germany  were  in  exile,  and  London  was  practically  the 
only  important  centre  of  radical  thought  and  activity.  The 
movement  fell  into  the  hands  of  impatient  advocates  of 
immediate  revolutionary  uprisings,  and  in  1850  Marx  with- 
drew from  the  Central  Committee  of  the  Communist  Alliance 


RISE  AND  GROWTH  OF  MODERN  SOCIALISM      261 

with  a  statement  in  which  he  warned  the  members  that  they 
would  have  to  pass  through  "fifteen,  twenty,  fifty  years"  of 
strife  in  order  to  change  conditions  and  make  themselves 
fit  for  political  power.  The  attitude  of  the  majority  he 
characterized  as  the  substitution  of  revolutionary  phrases 
for  revolutionary  evolution.1  The  Alliance  survived  the 
withdrawal  of  its  leader  barely  two  years,  and  for  the  next 
twelve  years  there  was  practically  no  formal  organization  of 
the  Socialist  forces. 

The  "International":  The  next  decade  brought  with  it 
renewed  activity.  The  Universal  Exhibition  at  London  in 
1862  brought  together  representatives  of  the  working  classes 
of  England,  France  and  Germany  and  did  much  to  stimulate 
the  feeling  of  working  class  solidarity.  In  1864,  largely 
through  the  inspiration  of  Marx,  a  congress  composed  of 
English  workingmen  and  their  sympathizers,  revolutionary 
exiles  from  the  Continent  living  in  England,  and  delegates 
from  France,  Germany,  Italy,  Poland  and  Switzerland  was 
held  in  London  and  resulted  in  the  formation  of  The  Inter- 
national Working  Men's  Association. 

The  program  of  the  Association  was  written  by  Marx, 
and  was  enthusiastically  adopted  after  one  offered  by 
Mazzini  had  been  rejected.  It  reaffirmed  the  principles  of  the 
Communist  Manifesto  and  ended  with  the  old  rallying  cry 
to  unite.  The  "International"  thus  born  rapidly  extended 
to  all  the  countries  of  Central  and  Western  Europe  and  to  the 
United  States  and  Australia.  It  played  an  important  part 
in  the  labor  troubles  which  occurred  in  several  countries, 
and  for  several  years  was  an  important  force  in  international 
politics.  Its  congresses  were  devoted  to  the  discussion  of 
social  and  labor  problems.  Thus,  the  International  was 
something  more  than  a  mere  revival  of  the  Communist 
League.  It  was  the  first  real  attempt  to  organize  the  workers 
internationally,  embracing  both  the  economic  and  the  politi- 
cal forms  of  organization.  The  Communist  League  had 
touched  only  a  few  choice  spirits.  The  International,  on 
the  other  hand,  embraced  practically  all  the  organization 
of  the  workers,  and  its  story  forms  one  of  the  most  stirring 
chapters  in  the  whole  history  of  the  labor  movement. 

Divergent    elements:  The    declaration   of   principles   to 

1  Quoted  by  Jaures,  Studies  in  Socialism,  p.  44. 


262  ELEMENTS   OF  SOCIALISM 

i 

which  all  members  of  the  International  had  to  subscribe 
was  essentially  a  Socialist  document.  It  set  forth  that  the 
emancipation  of  the  working  class  must  be  the  work  of  the 
workers  themselves.  The  struggle  for  this  emancipation 
is  not  a  struggle  to  place  the  workers  in  the  position  of  a 
ruling  class,  but  a  struggle  to  abolish  all  forms  of  class  rule. 
The  economic  dependence  of  the  workers  upon  those  who 
own  and  control  the  instruments  of  labor  forms  the  basis  of 
every  kind  of  servitude,  social  misery  and  spiritual  degrada- 
tion. Therefore,  every  political  activity  of  the  working 
class  must  be  directed  to  their  economic  emancipation. 

But  the  International  comprised  many  elements  to  whom 
the  declaration  of  principles  meant  very  little.  Its  greatest 
weakness  as  well  as  its  greatest  strength  lay  in  the  fact  that 
it  embraced  too  many  diverse  elements.  Although  Marx 
was  its  dominating  spirit,  the  International  was  by  no  means 
unitedly  pledged  to  his  principles.  In  addition  to  the  real 
Marxists  there  were  those  who  still  believed  in  conspiratory 
action,  those  who  followed  Proudhon,  those  who  relied  solely 
upon  the  power  of  the  trade  unions  and  those  to  whom 
nothing  was  important  except  political  democracy.  To 
Marx  the  most  important  need  of  the  time  seemed  to  be  the 
union  of  the  workers.  Everything  else  must  be  subordinated 
to  that  end.  Thus  we  find  many  compromises  and  contra- 
dictions in  the  history  of  the  International,  as,  for  example, 
when  the  Geneva  Congress  in  1866  defeated  an  amendment 
in  favor  of  an  eight-hour  work  day  and  adopted  a  resolution 
in  favor  of  ten  hours,  and  when  the  Lausanne  Congress,  in 
1867,  passed  a  resolution  declaring  that  only  in  individual 
cases,  where  the  father  was  incapacitated,  should  the  State 
undertake  the  education  of  children! 

Decline  of  the  International:  After  the  congress  of  1868 
the  Russian  Anarchist,  Michael  Bakunin,  joined  the  Inter- 
national and  precipitated  a  conflict  between  the  Anarchist 
members  and  the  followers  of  Marx.  The  struggle  became  a 
titanic  intellectual  duel  between  Marx  and  Bakunin,  the 
two  men  who  even  now  are  regarded  as  the  foremost  repre- 
sentatives of  their  respective  movements.  Marx  was  vic- 
torious, but  in  the  victory  the  International  itself  was  de- 
stroyed. In  1872,  in  order  to  avert  further  danger  from  the 
anarchists,  the  seat  of  the  General  Council  was  transferred 


RISE  AND  GROWTH  OF  MODERN  SOCIALISM      263 

to  New  York,  where  Marx  had  a  considerable  following 
among  the  German  exiles.  This  removal  was  designed 
simply  to  hide  for  a  time  the  fact  that  the  International  was 
destroyed  in  order  to  keep  it  out  of  the  hands  of  Bakunin. 
In  1876  a  "congress"  of  eleven  delegates  met  in  Philadelphia 
and  formally  dissolved  the  organization. 

The  form  of  organization  died,  but  the  work  and  the 
spirit  of  the  International  remained.  It  had,  in  some  degree, 
accomplished  the  international  unification  of  the  proletariat 
and  inspired  it  with  a  consciousness  of  proletarian  solidarity. 
More  than  that,  it  had  materially  aided  the  formation  of 
Socialist  parties  in  several  countries. 

The  "New  International":  The  later  history  of  the  niter- 
national  Socialist  movement  must  be  considered  in  its  sepa- 
rate national  phases.  Before  the  decline  of  the  International 
the  rise  of  the  German  Social  Democracy  had  already  marked 
the  beginning  of  a  new  era  in  the  history  of  Socialism.  From 
1872  to  1889  the  strength  of  Socialism  grew  steadily  through- 
out Europe  and  America,  preparing  the  way  for  a  new 
International. 

On  July  14,  1889,  the  first  of  a  new  series  of  international 
congresses  was  opened  in  Paris,  and  the  event  was  hailed 
as  the  establishment  of  a  New  International.  The  subsequent 
congresses  of  the  international  Socialist  movement  have  been 
held  at  Brussels  (1891),  Zurich  (1893),  London  (1896),  Paris 
(1900),  Amsterdam  (1904),  Stuttgart  (1907),  and  Copen- 
hagen (1910).  In  conjunction  with  the  Stuttgart  Congress, 
an  International  Congress  of  Socialist  Women  was  held, 
representing  the  women's  movements  of  the  leading  coun- 
tries. This  was  repeated  at  Copenhagen  and  has  now 
become  a  permanent  feature  of  the  international  movement. 
The  new  International  is  really  a  federation  of  autonomous 
national  Socialist  parties,  united  for  the  common  purpose 
of  bringing  an  end  to  the  world-wide  system  of  capitalist 
exploitation.  It  is  united  in  its  adherence  to  the  funda- 
mental theories  of  Marxian  Socialism.  As  an  organization 
it  exercises  no  authority  over  the  various  affiliated  parties, 
either  in  matters  of  theory,  program  or  methods.  Since  1900 
a  permanent  International  Socialist  Bureau  has  been  main- 
tained at  Brussels,  with  a  secretary  who  is  the  one  permanent 
and  paid  officer  of  the  International  movement.  The 


264  ELEMENTS   OF   SOCIALISM 

bureau  itself  consists  of  non-resident  delegates  from  every 
Socialist  party  affiliated  with  the  International. 

The  growth  of  the  international  party  has  been  rapid,  and 
at  the  present  time  (1911)  its  total  voting  strength  is  esti- 
mated at  over  nine  millions.  Its  greatest  numerical  strength 
is  in  the  four  countries  of  Germany,  France,  Austria  and  the 
United  States,  in  the  order  named.  Considered  in  propor- 
tion to  population  the  order  would  be  very  different.  Finland 
and  Belgium  rank  with  Germany,  while  the  United  States 
falls  very  far  down  the  list. 


RISE  AND  GROWTH  OF  MODERN  SOCIALISM      265 


SUMMARY 

1.  The  period  from  1830  to  1848  was  marked  by  the  decline  of  Uto- 
pianism  and  the  rise  in  Western  Europe  of  broader  proletarian  move- 
ments. 

2.  The  era  of  modern  Socialism  begins  with  the  Communist  Mani- 
festo of  1848,  which  first  outlined  the  principles  upon  which  it  is  based. 

3.  The  International  Wprkingmen's  Association  was  the  first  great 
Socialist  organization,  but  it  was  composed  of  many  divergent  elements 
and  was  wrecked  by  the  dissension  between  the  Socialists  and  the 
Anarchists. 

4.  The  "New  International"  dates  from  the  Congress  of  Paris  in 
1889.     It  is  a  federation  of  autonomous  national  Socialist  Parties, 
having  a  combined  voting  strength  of  over  9,000,000. 


QUESTIONS 

1.  What  is  the  significance  of  Chartism  in  the  history  of  the  Socialist 
movement? 

2.  What  is  the  place  of  Weitling  in  Socialist  history? 

3.  What  were  the  points  of  difference  between  Weitling  and  the 
Marxians  in  1847? 

4.  Discuss  the  bearing  of  the  Communist  Manifesto  upon  the  subse- 
quent Socialist  movement. 

5.  Why  did  Marx  and  Engels  call  themselves  Communists  instead 
of  Socialists? 

6.  What  results  did  the  Revolution  of  1848  accomplish? 

7.  Describe  the  characteristic  features  of  the  International. 

8.  What  were  the  elements  of  weakness  in  the  International? 

9.  Describe  the  form  of  organization  of  the  "New  International." 


LITERATURE 

Ely,  R.  T.,  French  and  German  Socialism  in  Modem  Times, 

Hunter,  Robert,  Socialists  at  Work,  Chap.  X. 

Kirkup,  Thomas,  A  History  of  Socialism. 

Rae,  John,  Contemporary  Socialism,  Chap.  Ill  and  IV. 

Spargo,  John,  Karl  Marx,  His  Life  and  Work. 


CHAPTER  XXII 

THE  NATIONAL  SOCIALIST  MOVEMENTS 
(1)  GERMANY 

Origins:  Through  priority  of  origin  as  well  as  present 
strength,  the  German  Social  Democracy  claims  our  first 
consideration.  The  most  prominent  figure  in  the  early 
history  of  the  German  movement  is  Ferdinand  Lassalle. 
While  Marx  and  Engels  were  both  Germans,  they  were  in  a 
very  special  sense  cosmopolitans,  and  each  of  them  spent 
his  life  outside  of  Germany.  Lassalle  was  born  in  1825. 
Like  Marx,  he  was  of  Jewish  descent.  At  the  age  of  twenty- 
three  he  joined  the  Socialist  wing  of  the  revolutionary  move- 
ment of  1848,  his  activities  leading  to  his  imprisonment  for 
six  months  and  exclusion  from  Berlin  for  ten  years.  His 
first  real  opportunity  came  during  the  bitter  struggle  of  1862 
in  which  Bismarck  became  master  of  Prussia.  He  entered 
political  life  with  a  vigorous  propaganda  by  lectures  and 
pamphlets  in  which  he  differed  from  the  other  political  parties 
and  subordinated  the  political  aspects  of  the  struggle  to  its 
social  aspects.  He  had  at  first  contemplated  joining  the 
Liberals,  but  found  them  half-hearted  in  their  advocacy  of 
democracy.  It  was  then  that  he  proposed  the  formation  of 
an  independent  Socialist  party.  The  proposal  met  with  a 
ready  response,  and  in  May,  1863,  the  General  Working- 
men's  Association  was  founded  with  Lassalle  as  its  president. 
The  Association  adopted  a  program,  written  by  Lassalle, 
which  aimed  chiefly  at  the  abolition  of  the  three-class  system 
of  voting,  which  still  obtains  in  Prussia.  During  the  remainder 
of  his  short  life  Lassalle  worked  for  the  cause  with  feverish 
activity,  writing,  lecturing  and  organizing  with  almost 
superhuman  energy.  In  August,  1864,  just  fifteen  months 
after  the  formation  of  the  new  party,  Lassalle  was  mortally 
wounded  in  a  duel,  and  his  brief  but  remarkable  career  was 
thus  brought  to  an  ignoble  end. 

266 


THE   NATIONAL   SOCIALIST   MOVEMENTS         267 

As  a  revolutionary  agitator  Lassalle  stands  almost  without 
a  peer.  That  no  little  of  the  sensational  success  which 
attended  his  agitation  was  due  to  favorable  circumstances 
rather  than  to  any  personal  qualities  may  be  granted.  The 
fact  remains,  however,  that  he  was  a  man  of  remarkable 
talents.  At  the  same  time  his  defects  of  character  were 
serious.  He  was  vain,  lacking  in  self-restraint  and  essentially 
an  aristocrat.  His  manner  of  life  was  that  of  a  self-indulgent 
man  of  fashion,  and  he  did  not  always  place  the  interests 
of  the  proletarian  movement  above  his  personal  pleasures 
and  ambitions. 

The  period  of  organization:  After  the  death  of  its  leader 
the  General  Workingmen's  Association  went  through  a 
period  of  depression.  Lassalle  had  been  practically  a  dictator 
and  the  association  had  therefore  not  developed  self-govern- 
ment. The  movement  proved  to  be  something  more  than  a 
personal  following  of  Lassalle,  however,  and  after  some  three 
years  of  difficulty  began  to  make  considerable  progress, 
especially  in  Prussia  and  North  Germany.  Meanwhile  a 
rival  organization  had  grown  up  in  Saxony,  South  Germany, 
under  the  leadership  of  Wilhelm  Liebknecht  and  August 
Bebel,  followers  of  Marx.  In  1869  this  Southern  association 
met  in  convention  at  Eisenach  and  organized  the  Social 
Democratic  Workingmen's  Party.  Both  the  Lassallean  and 
the  Eisenach  elements  were  represented  in  the  North  German 
Diet,  seven  Socialists  being  elected  to  that  body  in  1867. 

The  Franco-Prussian  War  checked  the  Socialist  agitation 
for  a  short  time,  and  in  the  first  elections  to  the  German 
Reichstag  only  two  Socialists  were  elected.  The  parties 
soon  revived,  however,  and  in  1874  their  combined  vote  was 
340,000,  nine  representatives  being  elected  to  the  Reichstag. 

Union  of  the  two  parties :  Both  the  Eisenach,  or  Marxist, 
party  and  the  Lassallean  association  had  met  with  persecu- 
tion from  the  police  at  every  step  since  their  organization, 
and  by  this  time  the  need  for  unity  of  the  two  forces  had 
long  been  apparent  and  discussed.  While  the  two  organiza- 
tions had  a  common  object  there  were  a  number  of  differences 
in  theory  and  tactics — the  differences  between  the  theories 
and  tactics  of  Marx  and  those  of  Lassalle. 

The  union  of  the  two  factions  was  finally  effected  at  Gotha, 
in  1875.  The  Lassalleans  were  in  the  majority,  and  in  the 


268  ELEMENTS   OF   SOCIALISM 

interests  of  harmony  the  leaders  of  the  Marxist  forces  con- 
sented to  the  program  drafted  by  the  Lassalleans.  By  far 
abler  than  the  leaders  on  the  other  side,  the  Marxist  leaders 
manifested  great  wisdorrf  and  courage  in  taking  this  step, 
despite  the  protests  of  Marx  himself.  The  program  opens 
with  the  statement  that '  'Labor  is  the  source  of  all  wealth 
and  all  culture,  and  as  useful  work  in  general  is  possible 
only  through  society,  so  to  society,  that  is  to  all  its  members, 
the  entire  product  belongs;  while  as  the  obligation  to  labor 
is  universal,  all  have  an  equal  right  to  such  product,  each 
one  according  to  his  reasonable  needs."  This,  together 
with  the  reference  to  the  "Iron  Law  of  Wages"  in  the  follow- 
ing section,  is  purely  Lassallean,  as  is  the  demand  for 
"Socialistic  productive  associations  with  State  help  under  the 
democratic  control  of  the  laboring  people." 

Marx  wrote  from  London  a  bitter  denunciation  of  the  pro- 
posed program.  He  was  not  opposed  to  union.  On  the 
contrary,  holding  that  "Every  step  of  real  movement  is 
worth  a  dozen  programs,"  he  would  have  had  them  unite 
upon  almost  any  basis  except  that  of  a  program  which  he 
regarded  as  fundamentally  false.  He  attacked  the  Lassallean 
principles  contained  in  the  program  and  denounced  them  as 
"utterly  condemnable  and  demoralizing  to  the  party." 
Had  this  letter  been  published  at  the  time  it  would  have 
defeated  the  efforts  to  unite  the  two  elements.  The  letter 
was  not  published  until  many  years  afterward,  however,  and 
although  Marx  was  furious  at  the  time,  on  account  of  the 
rejection  of  his  advice,  time  has  shown  that  the  defects  of 
the  Gotha  program  were  not  important  enough  to  offer  a 
real  barrier  to  the  progress  of  the  movement. 

The  "exceptional  laws" :  At  the  election  of  1877  the  united 
party  polled  half  a  million  votes  and  elected  twelve  members 
to  the  Reichstag.  This  revelation  of  the  strength  of  the 
movement  aroused  and  frightened  Bismarck.  His  rule  was 
challenged  and  he  answered  with  repression,  the  Junker 
dominating  the  statesmen.  A  pretext  for  the  repression  was 
found  in  the  attempts  made  upon  the  life  of  the  Kaiser  by 
two  irresponsible  fanatics.  Although  it  was  very  evident 
that  the  Socialists  had  nothing  to  do  with  either  attempt, 
Bismarck  accused  them  of  complicity  and  forced  through  the 
Reichstag  severe  laws  which  suppressed  all  Socialist  news- 


THE   NATIONAL   SOCIALIST   MOVEMENTS         269 

papers,  the  holding  of  public  meetings,  and  even  the  formal 
organization  of  the  party.  During  the  remainder  of  Bis- 
marck's rule  the  only  forum  open  to  the  Socialists  was  the 
tribune  of  the  Reichstag  itself.  The  affairs  of  the  party 
had  to  be  conducted  largely  from  Switzerland,  even  its 
official  organ,  the  Sozial  Demokrat,  being  published  from 
there  and  smuggled  into  Germany. 

For  a  time  the  growth  of  the  party  was  checked.  The 
voters  were  openly  intimidated  and  many  of  the  leading 
Socialists  were  exiled.  In  1881  the  vote  of  the  Social  Demo- 
crats fell  to  312,000.  But  a  movement  like  Socialism  thrives 
on  oppression,  and  when  in  1890  the  Social  Democrats  polled 
1,427,000  votes,  three  times  the  vote  of  1877,  the  govern- 
ment abandoned  Bismarck's  policy  of  repression  and  the 
exceptional  laws  were  repealed. 

The  Erfurt  Congress:  In  1891  the  party  was  again  per- 
mitted to  hold  a  convention  upon  German  soil.  It  met  at 
Erfurt  and  adopted  a  new  program  in  place  of  that  adopted 
at  Gotha.  The  Erfurt  program  eliminates  all  the  semi- 
Utopianism  of  Lassalle,  and  is  one  of  the  best  short  state- 
ments of  Marxian  Socialism  ever  made.  It  begins  as  follows: 

"The  economic  development  of  the  bourgeois  society 
leads  by  a  necessity  of  nature  to  the  downfall  of  small 
production,  the  basis  of  which  is  the  private  property  of  the 
workman  in  his  means  of  production,  and  transforms  him 
into  a  proletarian  without  property,  whilst  the  means  of 
production  become  the  monopoly  of  a  comparatively  small 
number  of  capitalists  and  great  land-owners." 

The  program  goes  on  to  describe  the  class  struggle,  and 
the  necessity  of  collective  ownership  of  the  means  of  pro- 
duction for  the  emancipation  of  the  proletariat.  This  social 
transformation  at  the  hands  of  the  working  class  must 
come  through  political  action,  and  in  emancipating  them- 
selves they  will  free  humanity.  The  specific  demands  are 
well  stated,  and  the  whole  program  is  an  indication  of  the 
great  intellectual  advance  made  by  the  party  in  the  sixteen 
years  which  had  elapsed  since  the  Gotha  Congress.  The 
Erfurt  program  still  stands  as  the  theoretical  basis  of  the 
German  Social  Democracy  after  twenty  years  of  experience 
and  criticism. 

Later  growth:  The  strength  of  the  Social  Democrats  has 


270 


ELEMENTS   OF  SOCIALISM 


steadily  increased  since  the  Erfurt  Congress.  The  following 
table  shows  the  growth  of  the  party's  electoral  strength 
since  the  establishment  of  the  Empire: 

i 

TABLE  VI 
GROWTH  OF  THE  SOCIALIST  VOTE  IN  GERMANY 


YEAR. 

Socialist 
Vote. 

Percentage 
of 
Total  Vote. 

Members 
Elected  to 
Reichstag 

1871                         

124,655 

3.0 

2 

1874                   

351,952 

6.8 

9 

1877     

493,288 

9.1 

12 

1878                         

137,158 

7.6 

9 

1881  

311,961 

6.1 

12 

1884                          

549,990 

9.7 

24 

1887             

763,128 

10.1 

11 

1890                              

1,427,298 

19.7 

35 

1893                      

1,176,738 

23.3 

44 

1896         

2,007,076 

57 

1903                                  

3,008,000 

24.0 

81 

1907         

3,258,968 

24.3 

43  » 

1912    

4,400,000 

40.0 

110 

The  gain  in  the  total  vote  in  1907  was  made  in  the  face 
of  a  concerted  campaign  against  Socialism  made  by  the 
government  and  all  the  other  parties  of  the  Empire.  Every 
Socialist  candidate  met  with  a  united  opposition  supported 
by  almost  unlimited  funds.  Over  ten  million  anti-Socialist 
pamphlets  were  distributed,  and  speakers  were  sent  to  every 
possible  social  and  literary  club.  The  chief  cause  of  the 
relative  weakness  of  the  Social  Democrats  in  the  Reichstag 
lies  in  the  fact  that  the  Empire  has  never  been  redistricted. 
The  great  cities,  which  are  the  strongholds  of  the  Socialists, 
have  the  same  number  of  representatives  that  they  had  in 
1871.  The  Centre,  or  Roman  Catholic,  party — which  is  next 
to  the  Social  Democracy  in  numerical  strength — has  its 
strongholds  in  those  sections  of  the  country  which  have  not 
materially  increased  their  population  since  1871.  Although 
this  party  polled  only  2,183,384  votes  in  1907,  or  1,075,584 
votes  less  than  the  Social  Democrats,  it  had  108  representa- 

1  Increased  to  52  in  the  by-elections  between  1907  and  1911.  The 
report  of  the  party  to  the  International  Congress  at  Copenhagen  in  1910 
showed  that  the  party  had  also  185  representatives  in  the  various 
parliaments  of  the  federated  States  of  the  Empire. 


THE   NATIONAL   SOCIALIST   MOVEMENTS         271 

tives  in  the  Reichstag  as  against  the  43  of  the  Social  De- 
mocracy.1 

The  dues-paying  party  membership  has  increased  57.7 
per  cent  since  the  election  of  1907,  the  total  number  in  1911 
being  836,562.  In  the  nine  by-elections  which  took  place 
in  the  year  ending  August  1,  1911,  the  party  vote  averaged 
47.37  per  cent  of  the  total  vote  cast,  as  against  an  average  of 
40.46  per  cent  in  the  contested  elections  of  1907.  The  Social 
Democracy  controls  many  of  the  larger  German  cities,  and  has 
at  present  8,910  municipal  representatives  in  the  Empire.2 

Revisionism:  Within  recent  years  a  movement  for  a 
moderation  of  theoretical  statement  and  for  opportunism 
in  political  tactics  has  grown  up  within  the  party  and  been 
greatly  exploited  by  the  non-Socialist  press.  The  best 
known  representative  of  this  movement  is  Eduard  Bern- 
stein, a  trusted  leader  of  the  party  from  the  early  days  of 
the  exceptional  laws.  The  principal  points  upon  which  he 
centres  his  attack  on  the  accepted  theories  of  Socialism 
have  been  dealt  with  elsewhere.  Bernstein's  book,  Die 
Voraussetzungen  des  Sozialismus,3  made  a  tremendous  sensa- 
tion when  it  appeared  in  1899.  Although  the  proposals  of  the 
Revisionists  have  always  been  defeated  by  large  majorities  in 
the  party  congresses,  they  have  gained  steadily  in  influence. 

At  the  Magdeburg  Congress  in  1910  the  point  at  issue 
between  the  two  elements  was  on  a  question  of  practical 
tactics.  One  of  the  strictest  rules  of  the  party  is  that  its 
representatives  must  not,  under  any  circumstances,  vote  for 
the  budget  of  the  government.  The  argument  is  that  such 
an  act  would  be  voting  money  to  an  anti-Socialist  govern- 
ment. It  happened  that  in  the  Grand  Duchy  of  Baden  the 
Socialists  held  the  balance  of  power  between  the  liberal 
government  and  a  conservative  clerical  opposition.  Deem- 
ing it  unwise  to  play  into  the  hands  of  the  latter,  the  Social- 
ists, led  by  Dr.  Frank,  voted  for  the  budget.  At  the  Magde- 
burg Congress,  Bebel  moved  a  resolution  mildly  censuring 

1  In  January,  1912,  the  Social  Democracy  became  the  strongest  single 
party  in  the  Reichstag,  the  Centrists  returning  only  93  members. 

2  Vide  Report  of  Executive  Committee  to  Party  Congress  at  Jena, 
Sept.,  1911. 

3  Published   in   English   translation   under   the   title,   Evolutionary 
Socialism,  New  York,  1910. 


272  ELEMENTS   OF  SOCIALISM 

the  Baden  leaders.  For  Dr.  Frank,  who  is  one  of  the  ablest 
and  best  loved  men  in  the  German  party,  Bebel  expressed 
his  affectionate  regard,  calling  him  his  youngest  son,  his 
Benjamin.  But  while  the  resolution  of  censure  was  as  mild 
as  it  was  possible  for  such  a  resolution  to  be,  Bebel's  attack 
upon  the  position  taken  by  Dr.  Frank  and  his  colleagues 
was  keen  and  bitter.  At  an  evening  session,  Dr.  Frank 
announced  that  he  and  his  colleagues  could  not  agree  to 
abide  by  the  resolution.  Aroused  by  this  declaration,  the 
"orthodox"  element  insisted  then  and  there  upon  adding  a 
rider  to  the  resolution  warning  the  Baden  delegates  that  in 
the  event  of  their  refusing  to  obey  the  resolution  they  would 
be  expelled  from  the  party.  Realizing  the  seriousness  of  his 
position,  Dr.  Frank  begged  the  Congress  to  adjourn  the 
discussion  until  the  next  morning.  This  the  Congress 
refused  to  do  and  Dr.  Frank  and  some  sixty  delegates  with- 
drew from  the  Congress,  whereupon  the  rider  was  adopted. 
Bebel,  who  had  not  been  present  during  the  evening  session, 
was  greatly  grieved  when  he  learned  what  had  taken  place. 
Of  course,  the  event  was  widely  hailed  as  a  "split"  in  the 
ranks  of  the  party.  That  it  came  perilously  near  to  a 
disastrous  break  in  the  solidarity  of  the  party  is  freely 
admitted.  Later  Dr.  Frank  and  hfs  colleagues  came  back 
to  the  Congress  and  gracefully  accepted  the  decision  of  the 
majority.  The  event  proved  to  the  world  the  strong  sense 
of  party  loyalty  and  unity  which  dominates  the  German  Social 
Democracy. 

The  Social  Democracy  and  trade  unionism:  The  industrial 
development  of  Germany  was  late  in  beginning  and  the  first 
trade  unions  were  not  organized  until  the  inception  of  the 
Socialist  movement.  From  the  very  first  the  Marxist  ele- 
ment favored  the  formation  of  workmen's  associations 
(Gewerkschafteri)  and  the  Lassallean  element  from  1869. 
Thus  the  two  movements  have  largely  developed  side  by 
side,  and  there  has  never  been  the  bitter  misunderstanding 
and  hostility  which  has  marked  the  relations  of  the  two 
movements  in  England,  where  the  trade  union  movement 
was  already  well  established  when  the  modern  Socialist 
movement  appeared.  The  political  party  and  the  industrial 
organization  are  regarded  as  equal  parts  of  one  movement. 
This  has  given  the  Social  Democracy  a  great  advantage, 


THE  NATIONAL  SOCIALIST  MOVEMENTS        273 

for  the  rapid  industrial  development  of  the  country  has 
forced  a  corresponding  growth  of  the  trade  unions,  and  this 
in  turn  has  meant  a  constant  increase  in  Socialist  strength. 
The  great  bulk  of  the  trade  unions  of  Germany  are  Social- 
istic in  their  sympathies.  There  are,  however,  some  minor 
non-Socialist  unions  which  are  called  "Yellow  Unions"  in 
contradistinction  from  the  "Red  Unions,"  which  support  the 
Social  Democrats.  The  total  trade  union  membership  is 
about  two  and  a  half  millions,  two  millions  belonging  to  the 
"red"  unions  and  half  a  million  to  the  "yellow"  unions. 

Leaders  of  the  Social  Democracy:  The  foremost  of  the 
older  political  chiefs  of  the  party  was  Wilhelm  Liebknecht. 
A  lineal  descendant  of  Martin  Luther,  Liebknecht  was  born 
into  the  same  educated  middle  class  as  Marx.  As  early  as 
1848,  when  he  was  twenty-two  years  of  age,  he  became 
connected  with  the  revolutionary  movement,  and  was  one 
of  the  group  of  exiles  which  gathered  around  Marx  in  Lon- 
don during  the  period  of  reaction.  He  was  one  of  the 
founders  of  the  Eisenach  party,  and  one  of  those  primarily 
responsible  for  bringing  about  the  unity  of  the  movement 
at  Gotha.  He  was  elected  to  the  North  German  Diet  in 
1867,  and  was  a  member  of  that  body  and  of  the  German 
Reichstag  the  greater  part  of  his  life  from  that  time  until 
his  death  in  1900.  He  served  many  terms  of  imprisonment 
for  the  cause  he  loved  and  served  so  well. 

August  Bebel,  a  master  turner  and  largely  self-educated, 
the  present  leader  of  the  German  party,  has  often  been 
called  the  ablest  parliamentary  debater  in  Europe.  After 
Liebknecht  returned  to  Germany,  in  1862,  Bebel,  who  was 
already  active  in  the  trade  union  movement,  but  was  not  a 
Socialist,  formed  an  acquaintance  with  him.  In  1866  Bebel 
definitely  allied  himself  with  the  Socialist  movement  of  the 
time,  and  later  became  one  of  the  founders  of  the  Eisenach 
party.  While  admitting  the  influence  of  Liebknecht,  Bebel 
himself  says  that  he  came  to  Marxism  by  way  of  Lassalle.  He 
entered  the  Reichstag  soon  after  the  establishment  of  the 
Empire  and  is  still  an  active  member  of  that  body. 

The  foremost  theoretician  of  the  party  is  Karl  Kautsky. 
He  is  perhaps  the  foremost  living  authority  upon  Marxian 
Socialism.  In  some  respects  he  is  carrying  on  the  work  of 
Frederick  Engels  just  as  Engels  carried  on  the  work  of  Marx. 


274  ELEMENTS   OF  SOCIALISM 

The  older  leaders  of  the  German  party  are  rapidly  giving 
place  to  younger  men,  and  there  has  been  a  noticeable 
increase  in  the  proportion  of  leaders  who  have  themselves 
come  from  the  working  class.  There  are  two  reasons  for  this: 
First  of  all,  the  proletariat  is  becoming  more  self-reliant 
and  no  longer  has  to  depend  upon  middle-class  "intellec- 
tuals" to  the  same  extent  as  in  earlier  days.  Secondly, 
class  lines  are  being  drawn  more  closely  in  German  politics, 
and  relatively  fewer  men  of  the  type  of  Marx,  Lassalle,  and 
Liebknecht  leave  their  class  to  cast  their  lot  with  the  pro- 
letariat. 

Among  the  noteworthy  younger  leaders  of  German  Social- 
ism may  be  mentioned  Karl  Legien,  the  leader  of  trade 
unionism,  George  Ledebour,  a  powerful  orator  and  debater, 
Albert  Siidekum,  the  leading  authority  in  Germany  on 
municipal  problems,  and  Herman  Molkenbuhr,  the  present 
floor  leader  of  the  party  in  the  Reichstag. 

The  women's  movement:  The  party  maintains  a  Social 
Democratic  Women's  Bureau  for  the  purpose  of  carrying  on 
special  propaganda  among  proletarian  women.  There  are 
at  present  (1911)  107,693  women  who  are  dues-paying 
members  of  the  party.  Women  take  a  very  prominent  part 
in  the  affairs  of  the  party.  The  first  National  Women's 
Convention  of  the  party  was  held  in  March,  1911,  and  was 
effective  in  emphasizing  the  party's  strong  support  of  woman 
suffrage.  The  best  known  of  the  women  leaders  of  the  party 
are  Clara  Zetkin,  an  able  agitator  and  editor  of  Die  Gleichheit 
("Equality"),  a  paper  which  has  95,000  subscribers,1  and 
Rosa  Luxemburg,  best  known  on  account  of  her  writings  and 
speeches  in  support  of  the  extreme  Left  of  the  party. 

Much  attention  has  been  given  to  the  juvenile  movement. 
Until  1908  there  were  two  central  organizations  of  Young 
Socialists  under  the  leadership  of  Karl  Liebknecht,  the  son 
of  Wilhelm  Liebknecht.  In  that  year  a  law  was  passed 
making  such  organizations  illegal,  but  the  party  has  found 
a  way  to  maintain  the  essential  features  of  the  movement 
without  formal  organization. 

Press,  literature  and  education:  The  number  of  daily 
newspapers  owned  and  controlled  by  the  party  has  increased 
from  65  to  87  since  1907,  and  their  combined  circulation  is 

1  Report  to  Jena  Congress,  1911. 


275 

well  over  a  million  copies  a  day.  These  papers  are  published 
in  fifty-seven  printing  establishments  owned  by  the  party. 
There  are  also  many  weeklies  and  monthlies.  Germany 
takes  the  first  place  among  the  nations  in  the  character  and 
quantity  of  its  Socialist  literature,  particularly  in  the  field 
of  theory.  The  work  of  the  leading  German  writers  has 
been  translated  into  all  European  languages,  and  until 
very  recent  years  was  the  chief  literary  support  of  the  world 
movement.  The  party  maintains  a  permanent  school  at 
Berlin  for  the  training  of  writers  and  speakers,  and  carries 
on  a  very  vigorous  educational  propaganda  throughout  the 
country. 

(2)  FRANCE 

Foundations  of  French  Socialism:  As  we  have  already 
seen  France  played  a  brilliant  part  in  the  earlier  Utopian 
phases  of  the  Socialist  movement.  Many  writers  have  con- 
sidered Socialism  to  be  essentially  French  in  its  origin 
dating  from  the  Encyclopedists,  notably  Rousseau,  in  whose 
works  we  do  find  some  glimmerings  of  Socialist  philosophy. 
Through  Morelly  and  Mably  these  ideas  were  continued 
and  developed  down  to  the  Revolutionary  period,  when  the 
works  of  Boissel  and  Babeuf  appeared.  Then  came  Saint- 
Simon,  Fourier,  Cabet  and  Louis  Blanc.  The  latter  came 
nearest  to  modern  Socialism  but  his  work  did  not  give  rise  to 
a  permanent  movement.  After  1848  French  radical  thought 
was  dominated  for  many  years  by  the  Anarchism  of 
Proudhon  and  Blanqui,  during  which  time  Marxian  Socialism 
hardly  obtained  a  foothold  in  the  land  where  Marx  had  first 
declared  himself  a  Socialist. 

The  International  Working  Men's  Association  had  been 
the  outcome  of  the  visit  of  French  workingmen  to  London 
in  1862,  and  the  organization  was  always  numerically  strong 
in  France.  But  the  French  members  were  Anarchists  rather 
than  Socialists  and  always  voted  against  collectivist  proposals. 
M.  de  Molinari  said  in  1869  that  out  of  every  ten  French 
workingmen  who  had  any  interests  beyond  eating  and  drink- 
ing, nine  were  Socialists,  but  he  used  the  word  Socialism 
to  include  all  kinds  of  radicalism,  especially  the  schools  of 
Proudhon  and  Blanqui.  The  crushing  defeat  of  the  Paris 


276  ELEMENTS   OF  SOCIALISM 

Commune,  followed  by  the  speedy  disruption  of  the  Inter- 
national, served  to  scatter  still  further  the  forces  of  the 
French  proletariat.  The  Commune  had  no  connection  with 
Socialism,  being  simply  a  protest  of  Paris  against  the  humil- 
iating peace  of  1871,  and  a  demand  for  municipal  autonomy. 
All  the  radical  forces,  including  those  represented  in  the 
International,  joined  in  the  movement,  and  all  suffered  from 
the  punitive  measures  adopted  by  the  government. 

Rise  of  the  new  Socialism:  During  the  first  years  of  the 
Third  Republic  the  chief  centres  of  Socialist  activity  were 
small  groups,  called  "Students'  Circles,"  organized  by  Jules 
Guesde  and  Gabriel  Deville.  Guesde  is  one  of  the  heroic 
figures  of  the  international  Socialist  movement.  A  revolu- 
tionist from  his  youth,  the  first  object  of  his  attack  was  the 
Bonapartist  Empire.  He  served  six  months  in  prison  in 
1865,  when  he  was  twenty  years  of  age,  and  six  years  later 
led  the  republicans  in  the  capture  of  Montpellier.  Sentenced 
to  exile  or  imprisonment  for  five  years,  Guesde  chose  exile 
and  went  to  Geneva,  where  he  came  into  touch  with  the 
Socialists.  He  soon  joined  a  branch  of  the  International 
and  assisted  in  the  establishment  of  a  daily  newspaper. 
Later  he  became  a  travelling  agitator  and  went  from  town 
to  town  through  Italy  and  Switzerland,  preaching  the  gospel 
of  Socialism  with  the  ardor  of  a  medieval  religious  zealot. 
Often  hungry,  homeless  and  ragged,  he  lived  only  for  the 
"Cause."  If  he  could  get  hold  of  one  man  in  a  town  who 
manifested  the  slightest  interest,  Guesde  rarely  left  him 
until  he  had  won  him  over.  In  every  town  he  would  leave 
a  small  group  of  converts  fired  with  something  of  his  own 
enthusiasm.  In  1876  he  returned  to  France  and  immedi- 
ately took  up  the  work  of  Socialist  propaganda.  He  estab- 
lished a  paper,  L'Egalite,  wrote  for  other  papers,  and,  in 
addition  to  this  heavy  labor,  rushed  from  one  end  of  France 
to  the  other,  carrying  on  a  restless  propaganda  and  forming 
little  Students'  Circles  everywhere.  He  did  not  as  yet 
attempt  to  form  a  party.  The  time  for  that  had  not  arrived. 
With  rare  genius  and  foresight  he  selected  the  promising 
young  men  in  all  the  cities  and  awakened  their  personal 
interest.  He  was  laying  his  foundations  broad  and  deep. 

In  1878  a  trade  union  congress  was  held  at  Lyons.  Guesde, 
who  was  a  delegate  to  the  congress,  had  already  drawn 


THE   NATIONAL   SOCIALIST   MOVEMENTS         277 

many  of  the  younger  leaders  of  the  unions  to  his  side,  and 
an  attempt  was  made  to  get  the  congress  to  indorse  the 
principles  and  program  of  Marxian  Socialism.  In  this  they 
signally  failed.  But  in  the  following  year'  the  Socialist 
program  was  adopted  by  a  large  majority  at  the  trade  union 
congress  at  Marseilles.  The  program  was  written  by  Guesde 
and  Paul  Lafargue,  a  son-in-law  of  Marx.  In  the  following 
year,  1880,  the  Socialist  delegates  to  the  trade  union  con- 
gress at  Havre  were  in  a  minority  and  were  refused  admission 
by  the  old  and  conservative  leaders.  Excluded  from  the 
regular  congress,  the  Socialists  met  independently  in  a 
separate  congress.  So  successful  were  they  from  that  point 
onward  that  the  conservative  organization  ceased  to  exist 
after  holding  one  other  poorly-attended  congress  in  1881. 
The  new  Socialist  movement  in  France  was  now  fairly 
launched. 

Party  dissensions:  In  1882  the  new  party  split  into  two 
parties.  One  party  represented  strict  Marxism,  and  was 
headed  by  Guesde,  Lafargue  and  Deville.  The  other  party 
represented  political  opportunism,  and  was  headed  by  Paul 
Brousse  and  Benoit  Malon.  The  opportunists  called  the 
Marxists  "Impossibilists"  and  themselves  by  contrast 
"Possibilists,"  and  these  terms  are  now  largely  used  in 
Socialist  controversy  everywhere.  In  1887  a  partial  recon- 
ciliation was  effected,  and  the  first  Socialists  were  elected  to 
the  Chamber  of  Deputies.  By  1891  the  "Possibilists"  had 
split  into  two  groups,  again  over  questions  of  tactics.  There 
was  still  another  considerable  group  of  independent  Social- 
ists led  by  Jean  Jaures  and  Etienne  Millerand  and  supported 
largely  by  middle-class  radicals.  If  we  add  to  these  elements 
the  semi-Anarchist  Blanquists,  we  have  five  distinct  elements 
in  the  French  Socialist  movement  of  the  time. 

The  united  parliamentary  group:  In  1893  the  election  of 
forty  Socialists  to  the  Chamber  of  Deputies,  by  a  combined 
vote  of  nearly  half  a  million,  led  to  better  feeling.  Largely 
through  the  activity  of  Jaur&s  and  Guesde  the  deputies  of 
all  the  factions  organized  into  a  united  parliamentary  group, 
Jaure"s  being  chosen  as  its  leader.  No  better  man  could 
have  been  selected  for  the  position.  In  1885,  at  the  age  of 
twenty-six,  while  Professor  of  Philosophy  at  the  Ecole 
Normal  Superieure,  Jaures  was  first  elected  to  parliament 


278  ELEMENTS   OF  SOCIALISM 

as  a  radical.  He  was  defeated  in  1889  and  at  once  returned 
to  his  university  work.  His  reputation  as  a  scholar  was 
already  national.  In  1893  he  was  again  elected  to  parlia- 
ment, this  time  as  a  Socialist.  Since  that  time  he  has  been 
the  most  striking  figure  in  the  French  movement  and  one 
of  the  most  striking  in  the  political  life  of  Europe.  As  an 
orator  he  has  no  peer  in  the  parliaments  of  Europe.  He 
is  always  in  the  forefront  in  parliamentary  debates,  is  a 
tireless  propagandist,  and  at  the  same  time  edits  the  leading 
Socialist  daily  newspaper  in  France,  L'  Humanite.  In  addi- 
tion to  all  this  work  he  manages  to  find  time  for  scholastic 
work,  and  his  collection  of  sources  for  the  history  of  the 
French  Revolution  will  form  the  basis  of  all  future  attempts 
to  write  the  history  of  that  period.  He  is  also  engaged  in 
the  preparation  of  a  monumental  history  of  Socialism. 

The  Dreyfus  case:  In  1898  the  cordial  relations  between 
the  various  Socialist  groups  were  interrupted  by  the  Dreyfus 
affair.  Guesde  and  his  followers,  the  "Impossibilists," 
refused  to  have  anything  to  do  with  the  matter,  but  Jaures 
actively  espoused  the  cause  of  the  accused  Captain  and 
conducted  a  brilliant  parliamentary  campaign  which  led 
to  the  reopening  of  the  case  and  the  ultimate  exoneration 
of  the  victim.  To  add  to  the  difficulty,  M.  Waldeck- 
Rousseau,  when  he  became  premier  in  1899,  made  a  bid  for 
Socialist  support  by  inviting  Millerand  to  join  his  ministry. 
With  the  open  support  of  Jaures,  Millerand  accepted.  This 
was  too  much  for  Guesde  and  his  followers  to  tolerate, 
especially  since  the  ministry  of  M.  Waldeck-Rousseau  in- 
cluded also  General  de  Gallifet,  who  in  1871  had  crushed 
the  Commune  with  almost  fiendish  brutality.  The  followers 
of  Guesde  and  Eduard  Vaillant,  a  veteran  Socialist  who  had 
also  been  a  leader  in  the  Commune,  broke  with  the  par- 
liamentary group,  and  the  members  of  the  two  factions 
became  open  enemies. 

The  reunion:  The  breach  in  the  French  party  was  the 
chief  matter  considered  at  the  International  Congress  at 
Amsterdam  in  1904.  Nearly  all  the  great  orators  of  the 
party  participated  in  the  debate,  but  it  is  chiefly  remembered 
as  a  great  duel  between  Bebel,  the  strict  Marxist,  and  Jaures, 
the  practical  Revisionist.  The  victory  rested  with  Bebel 
and  the  congress  decided  in  favor  of  the  position  taken  by 


THE   NATIONAL   SOCIALIST   MOVEMENTS         279 

Guesde  and  Vaillant.  Jaures  loyally  submitted  to  the 
decision  of  the  majority,  and  upon  the  return  of  the  French 
delegates  to  France  all  the  Socialist  factions  were  merged 
into  the  "French  Section  of  the  Workers'  International 
Party,"  with  a  Marxian  program  and  a  policy  of  strictly 
independent  political  action. 

The  Socialist  vote:  In  spite  of  division,  the  Socialist 
vote  has  increased  at  every  election.  In  1887  it  was  47,000. 
In  1893  it  rose  to  440,000.  In  1906,  the  first  year  after  the 
reunion,  the  vote  was  877,999,  and  54  deputies  were  elected. 
In  1910  the  vote  was  1,106,049,  an  increase  of  twenty  per 
cent  with  a  practically  stationary  population.  Seventy-six 
deputies  were  elected,  eighteen  of  them  from  the  Depart- 
ment of  the  Seine,  which  includes  Paris,  and  the  remainder 
divided  among  31  of  the  other  86  Departments  of  the 
Republic.  The  party  elected  two  additional  members  in 
the  Department  of  the  Seine  in  1911,  making  the  parlia- 
mentary representation  seventy-eight  members.  The  party 
is  represented  in  the  Cantonal  Councils  by  eighty-one 
General  Councillors  and  sixty-three  Arrondissment  Coun- 
cillors, and  there  are  about  3,800  members  of  the  United 
Socialist  Party  in  municipal  councils.  A  large  number  of 
important  cities  are  controlled  by  the  Socialists. 

The  large  "Radical  Socialist"  party  in  France  is  not  really 
Socialist  at  all,  but  corresponds  more  nearly  to  the  "insur- 
gent" wings  of  the  two  dominant  parties  in  the  United  States. 
MM.  Briand  and  Viviani,  who  entered  the  Clemenceau 
ministry  in  1907,  Briand  afterward  becoming  Premier,  are 
no  longer  recognized  as  Socialists,  although  both  were 
formerly  prominent  members  of  the  party.  Viviani  had 
ceased  to  be  a  member  of  the  party  long  before  he  accepted 
his  portfolio  in  M.  Clemenceau's  cabinet,  while  Briand 
was  immediately  expelled  by  the  party. 


(3)  AUSTRIA 

The  early  movement:  The  first  Austrian  Socialist  organ- 
izations formed  a  part  of  the  German  movement.  The 
Austrians  had  been  represented  in  the  Eisenach  Congress 
in  1869  and  were  active  participants  in  the  International. 


280  ELEMENTS   OF  SOCIALISM 

When  the  German  Empire  was  formed  the  Austrian  Social- 
ists were  cut  adrift  from  their  German  comrades,  and  the 
movement  went  through  a  long  period  of  depression.  Austria 
was  slower  in  industrial  development  than  Germany,  and 
the  difficulties  of  propaganda  were  increased  by  the  differ- 
ences of  nationality  and  language  within  the  Empire.  Agita- 
tion had  to  be  carried  on  in  seven  or  eight  languages  and 
racial  and  national  jealousies  prevented  effective  organiza- 
tion. Then,  too,  the  Anarchist  element  was  relatively  strong 
and  the  energies  of  the  Socialists  were  largely  absorbed  in 
the  struggle  against  Anarchism. 

The  turning  point  of  the  movement  was  at  the  Congress 
of  1888,  held  at  Hainsfeld,  near  Vienna.  At  this  congress 
the  Anarchists  were  routed  and  a  unified  party  formed  with 
separate  autonomous  divisions.  The  first  task  of  the  new 
party  was  to  work  for  universal  and  equal  suffrage.  Under 
the  old  law  the  electorate  was  divided  into  four  classes: 
(1)  The  aristocracy  and  high  clergy;  (2)  the  great  capitalists; 
(3)  the  middle  class  in  cities;  (4)  the  peasant  proprietors. 
Each  class  was  entitled  to  a  certain  proportion  of  the  353 
members  of  the  Reichstag.  The  first  victory  of  the  Socialist 
agitation  was  the  creation  of  a  new  electoral  class  or  curia, 
consisting  of  the  proletariat,  entitled  to  elect  72  additional 
deputies.  The  first  election  under  the  new  law  was  held  in 
1897  and  resulted  in  a  vote  of  nearly  750,000  for  the  Social- 
ists and  the  election  of  fifteen  Socialist  deputies,  seven  of 
these  coming  from  Bohemia. 

The  later  movement:  The  agitation  for  universal  and 
equal  suffrage  continued,  and  fear  of  a  revolution  caused  the 
government  to  grant,  in  January,  1907,  equal  suffrage  to 
all  men  over  the  age  of  twenty-four.  In  the  elections  held 
under  the  new  law  the  following  May  the  Socialists  polled 
1,041,948  votes  and  elected  87  deputies.  Of  these,  fifty 
were  Germans,  twenty-four  were  Czechs,  six  were  Poles,  five 
were  Italians  and  two  were  Ruthenians.  The  so-called 
"Christian  Socialist  Party"  of  Austria  is  a  Catholic  party, 
bitterly  opposed  to  the  whole  Social  Democratic  movement. 

The  best-known  leader  of  the  Austrian  Social  Democratic 
Party  is  Victor  Adler,  a  physician  who  gave  up  his  pro- 
fession to  engage  in  Socialist  journalism  and  politics.  Adler 
is  not  merely  one  of  the  greatest  scholars  of  the  international 


THE  NATIONAL  SOCIALIST   MOVEMENTS        281 

movement.  He  is  also  one  of  its  best  organizers,  and  as  a 
parliamentary  leader  has  few  equals.  Even  his  most  bitter 
political  enemies  admit  that  Adler  is  the  ablest  leader  in  the 
Austrian  parliament. 

(4)  BELGIUM 

The  political  movement:  The  first  definite  political  organ- 
ization of  the  Belgian  proletariat  was  formed  in  1885.  Its 
primary  object  was  to  unite  the  workers  against  the  capitalist 
despotism  which  in  the  "Workshop  of  Europe"  is  perhaps 
more  absolute  than  anywhere  else  in  the  world.  The  Con- 
gress of  1885,  held  at  Brussels,  was  not  interested  in  theories, 
and  although  the  program  adopted  by  it  was  essentially 
Socialist,  the  word  was  not  used  and  the  organization  took 
the  name  Belgian  Labor  Party.  After  eight  years  of  agita- 
tion ending  in  a  political  strike  involving  250,000  men,  the 
government  granted  a  constitutional  amendment  which  gave 
a  limited  suffrage  to  the  working  class,  which  had  heretofore 
been  wholly  without  political  power.  In  the  first  election 
held  under  the  new  law  the  Socialists  polled  345,959  votes 
and  elected  twenty-nine  deputies.  The  government  replied 
by  a  new  electoral  law  raising  the  voting  age  to  thirty  years, 
requiring  a  local  residence  of  three  years,  establishing  a  more 
rigid  class  electoral  system  and  giving  four  votes  each  to 
the  richest  class.  In  spite  of  these  obstacles,  the  party  in 
1895  obtained  representation  in  288  municipal  councils, 
with  a  majority  of  the  members  in  seventy-eight.  In  the 
partial  elections  for  parliament  in  1896  the  party  vote  in 
the  districts  where  elections  were  held  was  more  than 
doubled,  although  no  new  seats  were  gained. 

The  growth  in  voting  strength  since  1906  has  been  slow, 
but  the  party  itself  is  in  a  much  stronger  position  than  ever 
before.  With  a  total  population  of  only  seven  millions, 
the  Socialist  vote  in  1910  was  483,241.  The  party  now  has 
thirty-five  deputies,  twenty-one  per  cent  of  the  total  num- 
ber, and  seven  senators  in  the  Belgian  parliament,  giving 
them  second  place  in  relative  parliamentary  representation 
among  the  Socialist  parties  of  the  world,  and  this  in  spite 
of  the  unequal  franchise  law.  In  addition  the  party  has  now 
850  representatives  in  municipal  councils. 


282  ELEMENTS   OF   SOCIALISM 

Leaders:  Belgian  Socialists  were  very  prominent  in  the 
International.  Caesar  de  Paepe,  a  friend  of  Marx  and  an 
indefatigable  agitator,  was  one  of  the  moving  spirits  in  the 
International  and  one  of  its  ablest  leaders.  After  the  death 
of  the  International  he  directed  his  energies  for  many  years 
to  the  hopeless  task  of  bringing  about  harmony  between  the 
followers  of  Proudhon  and  Marxists  like  himself.  Fortu- 
nately, he  was  able  to  participate  in  the  formation  of  the  new 
party  in  1885,  though  he  narrowly  escaped  being  excluded 
from  the  congress,  so  weary  were  the  delegates  of  the  long 
years  of  fruitless  controversy  over  matters  of  dogma  and 
theory.  To  the  congress  of  1890  the  old  man  addressed  a 
letter  warning  the  members  of  the  party  to  preserve  unity 
above  all  things,  to  keep  the  party  broad  enough  to  permit 
of  the  extreme  radical  and  the  opportunist  working  side  by 
side,  each  in  his  own  way.  Soon  after  that  he  died  in  the 
south  of  France.  Since  the  death  of  Jean  Volders  and 
Caesar  de  Paepe  the  foremost  leaders  of  the  party  have  been 
Eduard  Anseele,  head  of  the  great  Cooperatives,  Emile 
Vandervelde,  the  parliamentary  leader  in  the  Chamber  of 
Deputies  and  the  party's  leading  theoretician,  and  Camille 
Huysmans,  who  is  the  permanent  secretary  of  the  Inter- 
national Socialist  Bureau. 

The  Cooperatives:  The  most  distinctive  feature  of  the 
Belgian  movement  is  the  degree  to  which  it  has  developed 
cooperative  production  and  distribution.  In  1879  Anseele, 
then  a  printer  in  Ghent,  founded  in  that  city  the  "Vooruit," 
a  workingmen's  cooperative  club  to  which  was  attached  a 
small  bakery.  The  movement  thus  begun  spread  rapidly, 
and  extended  to  all  the  important  towns  of  Belgium.  Ghent 
now  has  a  large  club  in  the  best  part  of  the  city  with  a 
department  store  and  a  cafe,  all  directly  owned  and  operated 
by  the  members  of  the  "Vooruit."  The  Maison  du  Peuple 
in  Brussels  is  a  magnificent  building  where  most  of  the  im- 
portant party  congresses  are  now  held.  In  addition  to 
cooperative  stores,  bakeries  and  restaurants,  the  cooperative 
plan  has  been  successfully  extended  to  brewing  and  cigar- 
making  establishments,  boot  and  shoe  factories,  printing 
shops,  cotton  mills  and  dairies.  In  December,  1909,  there 
were  174  cooperative  societies  with  140,730  members  organ- 
ized into  a  national  federation.  The  annual  sales  of  the 


THE   NATIONAL   SOCIALIST   MOVEMENTS         283 

cooperative  distributive  stores  amounted  to  $7,846,484  with 
profits  to  the  cooperators  of  $744,101.  The  party  is  largely 
financed  by  its  cooperative  associations. 


(5)  ITALY 

Formation  of  the  Italian  party:  The  Italian  sections  of 
the  old  International,  like  those  of  Spain,  were  largely 
controlled  by  Bakunin.  From  the  beginning,  therefore,  the 
Anarchists  were  relatively  strong  in  Italy,  and  that  fact 
made  the  progress  of  Marxian  Socialism  rather  slow.  In 
1878  the  attempt  of  an  Anarchist  to  assassinate  the  King 
gave  the  government  a  sufficient  pretext  for  initiating  a 
policy  of  repression  directed  equally  against  the  Anarchists 
and  the  Socialists,  although  the  latter  were  in  no  manner 
concerned  in  the  mad  act  of  Passanante,  and  had  completely 
severed  connections  with  the  Anarchists  in  1877.  Forbidden 
to  carry  on  an  open  agitation,  and  prevented  from  holding 
their  national  congress  in  1880,  and  otherwise  hindered,  the 
various  existing  Socialist  groups  temporarily  adopted  a  new 
line  of  policy.  Dropping  the  propaganda  of  Socialism,  they 
commenced  an  agitation  for  universal  suffrage,  joining  forces 
with  all  the  non-Socialist  elements  who  were  in  favor  of 
that  reform.  By  1881  this  movement  had  grown  so  formid- 
able that  twelve  hundred  societies  sent  delegates  to  a  great 
national  congress  held  at  Rome,  under  the  presidency  of 
Garibaldi.  The  government  now  felt  it  prudent  to  yield 
to  the  demand,  at  least  in  part,  and  a  franchise  bill  was 
quickly  passed.  Full  of  restrictions,  the  measure  never- 
theless greatly  extended  the  suffrage. 

Then  the  various  Socialist  groups  once  more  asserted 
their  real  purpose  and  united  for  the  campaign,  as  there  was 
as  yet  no  national  party.  Thirteen  candidates  were  put 
forward,  two  of  whom  were  elected.  The  thirteen  Socialist 
candidates  received  about  50,000  votes,  four  per  cent  of  the 
total  vote  cast.  One  of  the  two  Socialists  elected  was  Andrea 
Costa,  who  in  his  early  days  had  been  a  leading  Anarchist 
but  had  broken  with  Anarchism  and  become  one  of  the  most 
brilliant  and  active  of  the  Socialists.  Encouraged  by  the 
success  of  their  first  electoral  experiment,  the  Italian  Social- 


284  ELEMENTS   OF  SOCIALISM 

ists  formed  a  national  Socialist  party  in  1885,  but  it  made 
little  headway  and  led  a  very  precarious  existence.  Police 
persecutions  and  internal  dissensions  reduced  it  to  impotence. 
A  fresh  start  was  made  in  1892,  when  the  present  Socialist 
Party  was  formed.  Since  that  time,  despite  numerous 
factional  quarrels,  the  movement  in  Italy  has  made  steady 
progress. 

Different  elements  in  the  party:  The  new  movement  owed 
much  of  the  success  of  its  inception  to  the  work  of  Philip 
Turati,  an  able  lawyer  and  editor,  who  has  continued  to  be 
the  leader  of  the  moderate  wing  of  the  party,  the  "Reform- 
ists" as  they  are  called  in  Italy.  Opposed  to  the  Reformists 
are  the  "Syndicalists,"  led  by  Arturo  Labriola  and  others. 
The  Syndicalists  lay  their  chief  emphasis  upon  "direct 
action,"  especially  the  action  of  the  labor  unions.  They 
regard  political  action  as  of  very  minor  importance,  not 
infrequently  adopting  the  attitude  of  the  Anarchists  in 
repudiating  it  altogether  as  a  game  of  compromise  and  deceit. 
They  expect  to  win  by  means  of  a  general  strike  of  the 
workers  rather  than  as  a  result  of  parliamentary  action. 
Between  these  two  factions  stand  the  Integralists,  who  con- 
form in  general  to  the  accepted  tactics  and  theories  of  Marxian 
Socialism. 

At  the  party  congress  of  1908,  an  agreement  was  entered 
into  between  the  Reformists  and  the  Integralists  and  this 
received  the  support  of  about  two-thirds  of  the  entire  party 
membership.  At  the  same  congress  the  Syndicalists  defi- 
nitely broke  with  the  other  factions  and  left  the  party.  This 
schism,  the  destruction  of  the  party  organizations  in  Messina 
and  Reggio  by  the  earthquake  of  1908,  and  a  generally 
falling  off  occasioned  by  the  considerable  increase  of  party 
dues,  led  to  the  decrease  of  the  party  membership  from 
43,000  to  30,000.  In  the  elections  of  1909,  however,  the 
party  representation  hi  parliament  was  increased  from 
twenty-five  members  to  thirty-nine  and  the  vote  rose  to 
338,885. 

The  movement  in  Italy  is  greatly  hampered  by  the  illiter- 
acy of  a  large  part  of  the  working  class,  and  the  fact  that 
only  seven  per  cent  of  the  population  enjoys  the  right  of 
suffrage.  As  a  result  the  movement  is  largely  dominated 
by  middle  class  "intellectuals"  with  relatively  few  working- 


THE  NATIONAL   SOCIALIST  MOVEMENTS        285 

class  leaders.  Probably  in  no  other  country  of  the  world 
has  such  a  large  proportion  of  scientists  and  literary  men 
of  eminence  joined  the  party.  But  in  Italy  as  elsewhere 
the  voting  strength  comes  mainly  from  the  working  class. 


(6)  GREAT  BRITAIN 

Introductory:  Although  England  was  the  first  modern 
industrial  country,  and  the  home  of  the  great  Owenite  and 
Chartist  movements,  it  was  relatively  late  in  forming  a 
distinctively  Socialist  party.  The  International  had  been 
organized  in  England  and  had  exercised  a  great  influence 
in  bringing  the  British  trade  unions  together  and  into  closer 
touch  with  the  working-class  organizations  of  Continental 
Europe.  It  had  been  especially  helpful  in  bringing  the 
unions  into  the  active  agitation  for  the  extension  of  the 
suffrage.  But  the  International  was  too  completely  domin- 
ated by  Marx  and  his  associates  ever  to  become  recognized 
as  being  other  than  a  foreign  movement  which  the  insular 
British  mind  regarded  with  a  good  deal  of  suspicion.  When 
the  end  came  the  International  had  been  completely  dis- 
credited by  its  connection  in  the  popular  mind  with  the 
Paris  Commune,  of  which  such  terrible  stories  were  told. 
That  the  International  really  had  very  slight  connection 
with  the  Commune  was  not  then  generally  known.  For 
many  years  after  its  decline  and  fall  the  unions  were  left 
suspicious  of  Socialism,  and  the  movement  was  confined 
to  a  few  foreigners,  mostly  Germans,  in  London. 

Rise  of  social  democracy:  After  the  extension  of  the 
franchise  in  1867  it  became  increasingly  evident  that  the 
mere  possession  of  political  power  did  not  of  itself  suffice  to 
cure  the  social  ills  which  all  deplored,  and  by  1880  all  sec- 
tions of  radical  thought  in  England  were  ripe  for  Socialist 
agitation  and  organization  and  propaganda.  The  Irish  Land 
League  had  won  an  immense  amount  of  popular  support, 
which  was  increased  by  the  opposition  of  Mr.  Gladstone's 
ministry  in  1880,  the  first  year  of  his  second  term  as  Prime 
Minister.  Gladstone's  Egyptian  policy  still  further  in- 
tensified the  breach  between  the  radical  elements  of  Great 
Britain  and  the  Liberal  Party.  Then  came  the  influence 


286  ELEMENTS   OF   SOCIALISM 

of  Henry  George,  whose  book,  Progress  and  Poverty,  had  an 
enormous  circulation  in  all  parts  of  Great  Britain  and 
Ireland.  Believers  in  George's  theories  formed  little  local 
groups  and  in  many  cases  went  much  farther  than  George 
and  became  thorough-going  Socialists. 

The  time  was  ripe,  therefore,  for  the  formation  of  a 
definite  Socialist  body  when,  in  March,  1881,  the  Democratic 
Federation  was  formed.  The  moving  spirit  of  the  new 
organization  was  Mr.  Henry  M.  Hyndman,  a  graduate  of 
Trinity  College,  Cambridge,  a  brilliant  scholar  and  journal- 
ist, and  a  friend  of  the  great  Italian  revolutionist,  Mazzini. 
Since  that  time  Mr.  Hyndman  has  been  the  acknowledged 
leader  of  Marxian  Socialism  in  England.  It  is  worthy  of 
note  that  at  the  organization  meeting  of  the  Democratic 
Federation  the  presiding  officer  was  the  man  who  presided 
at  the  foundation  of  the  old  International,  Professor  E.  S. 
Beesly.  To  all  the  delegates  assembled,  Mr.  Hyndman 
presented  copies  of  his  little  book,  England  for  All,  the  first 
attempt  to  popularize  Marxian  theories  in  English.  The 
Democratic  Federation  was  from  the  first  essentially  a 
Socialist  body,  though  the  only  specifically  Socialist  proposal 
in  its  program  was  the  "nationalization  of  the  land,"  which 
was  placed  ninth  on  the  list  of  specific  reforms.  This  was 
not  borrowed  from  Henry  George  as  is  commonly  supposed. 
It  had  long  been  one  of  the  proposals  of  English  democratic 
leaders  and  movements.  Bronterre  O'Brien,  greatest  of  the 
Chartist  leaders,  and  the  first  to  call  himself  a  Social  Demo- 
crat, was  a  vigorous  advocate  of  land  nationalization.  The 
idea  was  promulgated  long  before  O'Brien  even  by  Thomas 
Spence,  as  far  back  as  1775.  In  1883  the  name  of  the 
organization  was  changed  to  Social  Democratic  Federation, 
and  a  more  definitely  Socialist  program  was  adopted. 
Among  the  early  members  of  the  Federation  were  William 
Morris,  the  great  artist  and  poet;  Herbert  Burrows,  a  well- 
known  theosophist;  E.  Belfort  Bax,  historian  and  phi- 
losopher; Helen  Taylor,  step-daughter  of  John  Stuart  Mill; 
Annie  Besant,  the  most  famous  woman  orator  in  England; 
Edward  Aveling,  a  brilliant  and  versatile  scholar,  and  his 
wife,  Eleanor,  youngest  daughter  of  Karl  Marx;  Edward 
Carpenter,  author  and  educator;  John  Burns  and  Tom  Mann, 
two  of  the  most  effective  of  English  trade  union  leaders. 


THE   NATIONAL   SOCIALIST   MOVEMENTS         287 

In  December,  1884,  Morris,  Bax,  the  Avelings  and  a 
number  of  others  withdrew  from  the  Social  Democratic 
Federation  and  founded  the  Socialist  League.  The  grounds 
of  the  secession  were  mainly  personal,  though  it  developed 
into  an  important  difference  of  viewpoint.  Morris  and  his 
followers  relied  upon  educational  propaganda  mainly  and 
ignored  political  action,  while  the  Federation  under  the 
leadership  of  Mr.  Hyndman  was  from  the  very  first  pledged 
to  the  task  of  developing  a  Socialist  political  party.  The 
Federation  organ,  Justice,  and  the  League  organ,  The 
Commonweal,  indulged  in  bitter  controversies.  Quite 
naturally,  the  anti-parliamentary  attitude  of  the  Socialist 
League  attracted  the  Anarchists  to  it,  and  Morris  and  the 
others  who  had  seceded  from  the  Federation  soon  resigned 
from  the  League.  All  of  them  except  Morris  returned  to  the 
older  organization,  Morris  himself  acknowledging  that  in  the 
original  controversy  Mr.  Hyndman  had  been  right.  While 
he  did  not  rejoin  the  Federation,  Morris  contributed  to  its 
funds,  spoke  at  its  meetings  and  supported  the  parliamentary 
candidature  of  Mr.  Hyndman. 

The  growth  of  the  Federation  was  very  slow.  It  was 
regarded  with  distrust  by  Frederick  Engels  and  his  imme- 
diate associates,  so  that  it  did  not  include  in  its  membership 
all  the  avowed  Marxists  living  in  England.  On  the  other 
hand,  it  was  too  Marxian  in  the  theoretical  and  dogmatic 
sense  to  make  a  successful  appeal  to  the  British  working 
classes.  The  Federation  did  not  understand  the  trade  union 
movement,  notwithstanding  the  successful  work  among  the 
unions  of  men  like  Mann  and  Burns.  The  federation  tried 
to  act  as  the  schoolmaster  of  the  unions,  and  when  its  policy 
was  not  adopted  frequently  attacked  the  union  leaders. 
In  addition  to  this  antagonism  of  the  organized  workers  the 
Federation  frequently  antagonized  the  religious  elements 
among  the  working  class,  especially  the  non-conformists, 
through  the  outspoken  attack  of  some  of  its  leaders  upon 
Christianity. 

The  Independent  Labor  Party:  But  the  vigorous  propa- 
ganda carried  on  by  the  Social  Democratic  Federation  was 
not  barren  of  results.  It  laid  the  foundations  for  a  new 
movement.  In  January,  1893,  a  conference  was  held  at 
Bradford  in  fulfillment  of  an  understanding  arrived  at 


288  ELEMENTS   OF   SOCIALISM 

during  the  Trade  Union  Congress  of  the  previous  autumn. 
The  moving  spirit  in  the  organization  of  the  conference  was 
Mr.  J.  Keir  Hardie,  a  Scotch  miner  and  labor  leader  who 
since  1887  had  been  publishing  a  labor  paper,  and  had 
recently  been  elected  to  Parliament.  At  this  conference 
the  Independent  Labor  Party  was  formed.  It  was  from 
the  first  frankly  Socialist  in  aim,  although  its  Socialism 
was  crude  and  based  upon  an  instinctive  sense  of  justice 
rather  than  upon  a  basis  of  well-reasoned  theory.  The 
new  party  grew  rapidly,  attracting  many  discontented  mem- 
bers of  the  Liberal  Party,  a  large  number  of  trade  unionists 
and  a  great  many  men  and  women  members  of  the  non- 
conformist religious  bodies  who  had  been  repelled  by  the 
Federation.  Many  of  its  propagandists  were  lay  preachers 
in  the  Methodist  and  other  non-conformist  churches,  and 
they  brought  to  the  propaganda  of  Socialism  a  religious 
fervor  and  spiritual  point  of  view  which  proved  very  effec- 
tive. It  was  quite  common  at  one  time  for  meetings  of  the 
party  to  be  held  in  churches  and  opened  with  singing  and 
prayer.  Frederick  Engels  gave  the  new  party  his  blessing 
and  joined  it,  though  he  never  took  any  part  in  its  propa- 
ganda. Concerning  the  labor  movement  which  found  its 
effective  expression  in  the  Independent  Labor  Party,  Engels 
wrote  in  1892:  "It  moves  now  and  then  with  an  over- 
cautious mistrust  of  the  name  of  Socialism,  while  it  gradually 
absorbs  the  substance."  Engels  on  various  occasions  wrote 
sneeringly  of  the  sectarianism  and  dogmatism  of  the  Social 
Democratic  Federation.  In  1895  the  Independent  Labor 
Party  participated  in  the  general  elections,  but  fared  rather 
badly,  even  Keir  Hardie  losing  his  seat  at  South- West  Ham. 
The  labor  representation  committee :  At  the  Trade  Union 
Congress  of  1899  a  committee  was  organized  for  the  purpose 
of  bringing  together  the  trade  unions,  Socialist  organizations 
and  cooperative  societies  in  a  common  effort  to  gain  repre- 
sentation in  Parliament.  This  action  was  a  natural  develop- 
ment out  of  the  long-felt  need  for  the  unity  of  the  working 
class  movement,  but  it  was  undoubtedly  hastened  by  the 
decision  of  the  courts  in  the  famous  Taff  Vale  Railway  Case, 
which  compelled  the  railway  workers'  union  to  pay  the  Taff 
Vale  Railway  Company  about  $115,000  damages  for  the 
loss  sustained  by  the  company  as  a  result  of  a  strike  organ- 


THE  NATIONAL  SOCIALIST  MOVEMENTS        289 

ized  by  the  union.  This  decision  strongly  emphasized  the 
need  for  united  and  independent  political  action. 

Except  for  a  few  Scottish  societies,  the  cooperative 
societies  did  not  take  up  the  new  movement  with  enthusiasm, 
but  the  Independent  Labor  Party,  the  Social  Democratic 
Federation  and  the  Fabian  Society  joined  it,  and  the  trade 
unions  came  in  very  rapidly.  The  Social  Democratic  Federa- 
tion soon  withdrew  when  it  failed  to  persuade  the  committee 
to  adopt  a  definitely  Socialist  program. 

The  parliamentary  election  of  1900  was  suddenly  sprung 
upon  the  country  in  the  midst  of  the  Boer  War  and  the 
Labor  Representation  Committee  was  not  well  prepared 
either  with  money  or  suitable  candidates,  but  the  average 
labor  vote  increased  from  1,500  to  4,000,  and  Richard  Bell, 
leader  of  the  railway  workers'  union,  and  Keir  Hardie 
were  elected.  The  first  real  test  of  the  strength  of  this 
coalition  came  in  1906  when  the  Committee  ran  fifty  can- 
didates for  Parliament,  of  whom  thirty  were  elected. 

The  Labor  Party:  In  1906  the  name  of  the  organization 
was  changed  to  the  Labor  Party.  This  involved  no  other 
material  change,  and  the  Labor  Party  is,  therefore,  not  so 
much  a  distinct  and  separate  party  as  a  union  of  various 
working  class  elements  for  political  campaign  purposes  in 
which  there  are  both  Socialist  and  non-Socialist  elements. 
The  Independent  Labor  Party  retains  its  own  autonomous 
organization,  and  its  own  Socialist  platform.  While  the 
Labor  Party  adopts  the  nominees  of  the  Independent  Labor 
Party,  it  also  puts  forward  candidates  who  are  not  by  any 
means  Socialists,  some  of  them  being  Liberals  of  the  old 
school,  quite  opposed  to  Socialism.  This  arrangement  makes 
it  very  difficult  for  the  outsider  to  understand  British 
Socialism. 

One  of  the  chief  problems  of  British  Socialism  arises  out 
of  this  alliance  with  the  trade  unions  in  the  Labor  Party. 
So  long  as  the  nominees  of  the  Labor  Party  are  Socialists, 
or  even  men  who  are  regarded  as  being  quite  near  to  Social- 
ism, it  is  comparatively  easy  to  get  the  rank  and  file  of  the 
Socialists  to  support  them.  When,  however,  trade  union 
leaders  of  the  old  type,  generally  Liberals  and  opposed  to 
Socialism,  are  nominated,  a  great  deal  of  dissatisfaction  is 
expressed  by  the  Socialist  rank  and  file.  The  difference  has 


290  ELEMENTS   OF   SOCIALISM 

frequently  manifested  itself  in  Parliament,  the  Labor  Party 
men  voting  differently  according  to  their  political  persuasion. 
This  latter  fact  has  done  much  to  weaken  confidence  in  the 
permanence  of  the  Labor  Party.  The  Social  Democratic 
Party — the  word  Federation  was  changed  to  Party  in  1907— 
is  not  affiliated  with  the  Labor  Party.  Many  of  its  promi- 
nent members  are  affiliated  with  it,  however,  through  their 
respective  trade  unions,  and  one  of  the  most  prominent 
representatives  of  the  Labor  Party  in  the  House  of  Commons, 
William  Thorne,  has  for  many  years  been  one  of  the  leaders 
of  the  Social  Democratic  Party.  In  some  cases  branches  of 
the  Social  Democratic  Party  have  joined  the  Labor  Party. 

In  the  elections  of  January,  1910,  the  Labor  and  Socialist 
parties  put  forward  seventy-eight  candidates,  of  whom  forty 
were  elected.  In  the  seventy-eight  constituencies  in  which 
candidates  were  put  forward  the  total  Labor  and  Socialist 
vote  was  505,690.  In  the  elections  of  the  following  December 
the  number  of  candidates  put  forward  by  the  Labor  and 
Socialist  parties  was  fifty-six,  of  whom  forty-two  were 
elected.  Of  these,  eight  were  elected  directly  by  the  Inde- 
pendent Labor  Party,  acting  alone  and  without  alliance  with 
the  Labor  Party.  Fifteen  other  members  of  the  Independent 
Labor  Party  were  elected  as  nominees  of  the  Labor  Party. 
One  member  of  the  Social  Democratic  Party  was  elected 
by  the  Labor  Party,  making  a  total  of  twenty-four  avowed 
Socialists.  Four  of  these  belonged  also  to  the  Fabian  Society. 
In  local  elections  the  various  Socialist  bodies  and  the  trades 
unions  frequently  unite.  The  report  of  the  International 
Socialist  Bureau  to  the  Copenhagen  Congress,  in  1910,  gave 
the  number  of  Socialist  representatives  upon  local  governing 
bodies  at  that  time  as  1,126. 

The  Fabian  Society:  An  important  and  peculiar  feature 
of  the  Socialist  movement  in  Great  Britain  is  the  Fabian 
Society,  an  organization  formed  in  1884  by  a  brilliant  group 
of  middle-class  men  and  women  for  the  purpose  of  permeating 
other  organizations  with  Socialist  ideas.  It  was  not  intended 
to  be,  and  never  has  been,  a  political  party.  Many  of  its 
members  are  Liberals  and  in  the  elections  of  1910  of  the 
eight  members  of  the  Fabian  Society  elected  to  Parliament 
four  were  elected  as  Liberals.  Among  the  early  members  of 
the  society  were  George  Bernard  Shaw,  then  a  struggling 


THE  NATIONAL  SOCIALIST   MOVEMENTS        291 

young  author,  little  known  outside  of  a  small  circle  of 
radicals;  Sidney  Webb,  economist  and  author;  Beatrice 
Potter,  who  had  been  secretary  to  Herbert  Spencer,  and  who 
later  became  Mrs.  Sidney  Webb;  Mrs.  Annie  Besant; 
Hubert  Bland,  a  radical  journalist,  and  Sidney  Olivier,  now 
Governor  of  Jamaica. 

The  society  has  never  tried  to  attract  a  large  membership. 
Its  greatest  contribution  to  the  Socialist  movement  has  been 
in  the  educational  field.  The  remarkable  series  of  Fabian 
Essays,  and,  later,  the  Fabian  Tracts,  have  been  of  immense 
service  to  the  movement.  The  latter  may  be  divided  into 
three  principal  groups.  The  first  group  consists  of  small 
pamphlets  which  deal  with  Socialism  in  general,  popular 
expositions  from  different  points  of  view.  The  second  group 
consists  of  popular  studies,  written  by  experts,  dealing  with 
the  relation  of  Socialism  to  special  problems,  such  as  the 
liquor  problem,  poverty  and  old  age,  and  so  on.  The  third 
group  consists  of  popular  expositions  of  the  laws  as  they 
relate  to  special  subjects,  such  as  public  health,  for  example, 
and  statements  of  what  may  be  done  and  how  it  must  be 
done.  These  "tracts"  are  sold  by  the  thousand  at  a  penny 
each  and  have  done  an  immense  amount  of  good  in  educating 
the  working  class  leaders  and  fitting  them  to  do  efficient 
service  upon  public  bodies. 

The  Fabian  Society  is  not  a  Marxian  organization.  It 
does  not  accept  Marx's  theories.  Long  before  the  rise  of 
the  Revisionist  movement  in  Germany,  the  Fabians  were 
Revisionists,  and  it  is  probable  that  Bernstein,  who  resided 
in  London  during  many  years  and  came  into  close  associa- 
tion with  the  Fabians,  was  largely  influenced  by  the  Fabian 
point  of  view.  The  most  important  political  work  of  the 
Fabian  Society  has  been  in  connection  with  the  administra- 
tion of  the  London  County  Council.  In  1910  the  Society 
for  the  first  time  in  its  history  put  forward  two  parlia- 
mentary candidates,  neither  of  whom  was  elected,  however. 

The  movement  for  Socialist  unity:  For  some  years  past 
there  has  been  a  constant  agitation  for  the  union  of  the 
Socialist  forces  of  Great  Britain,  and  prominent  Socialists 
like  Walter  Crane,  the  artist,  who  is  a  member  of  the  Social 
Democratic  Party,  have  done  much  to  promote  the  move- 
ment for  Socialist  unity.  When  the  Independent  Labor 


292  ELEMENTS   OF  SOCIALISM 

Party  was  young  and  struggling  the  Social  Democratic 
Federation  regarded  it  rather  contemptuously,  meeting  all 
advances  of  the  Independent  Labor  Party  with  the  declara- 
tion that  its  attitude  toward  that  body  was  one  of  "benev- 
olent neutrality."  But  as  the  new  party  grew  and  developed 
self-sufficiency,  producing  a  literature  of  its  own,  and  drawing 
by  far  the  largest  number  of  workers  to  its  ranks,  the  desire 
for  union  with  the  older  organization  was  less  acutely  felt. 
At  the  end  of  1911,  the  Social  Democratic  Party  joined  with 
several  small  local  Socialist  bodies,  and  a  few  branches  of  the 
Independent  Labor  Party,  adopting  the  name,  British  Social- 
ist Party.  The  new  party  is  little  more  than  the  Social 
Democratic  Party  under  another  name. 

(7)  THE  UNITED  STATES 

The  Utopian  period:  The  free  land  and  the  political 
democracy  of  America  led  to  its  choice  as  the  field  for  nearly 
all  the  great  Utopian  experiments.  Altogether  over  four 
hundred  such  colonies  were  established  in  the  United  States, 
most  of  them  in  the  period  from  1825  to  1850.  The  movement 
was  essentially  exotic,  although  in  Albert  Brisbane,  America 
produced  one  of  the  ablest  propagandists  of  Fourierism, 
and  the  New  York  Tribune  under  Horace  Greeley  gave  a 
great  deal  of  support  to  the  movement.  The  famous  Brook 
Farm  experiment,  notwithstanding  the  support  of  such 
intellectual  celebrities  as  Emerson,  Ripley,  Hawthorne,  the 
Channings,  Thoreau  and  Margaret  Fuller,  was  without  any 
great  social  significance.  The  movement  as  a  whole  was 
never  in  any  sense  a  political  movement.  Many  of  the 
members  of  the  Fourierist  phalanxes  belonged  to  the  Free 
Soil  Party,  and  three  of  the  members  of  the  Wisconsin 
phalanx  represented  that  party  in  the  State  Senate,  but 
there  was  no  affiliation  of  the  movement  as  such  to  any 
political  party. 

The  Utopian  movement  inevitably  had  an  effect  upon  the 
later  Socialist  movement.  In  the  first  place,  many  of  those 
who  came  into  the  movement  in  the  late  sixties  and  early 
seventies  of  the  last  century  had  been  connected  more  or 
less  directly  with  the  various  Utopian  experiments,  and 
brought  some  of  their  Utopianism  into  the  new  movement. 
Far  more  important  than  this  fact,  however,  was  the  fact 


THE  NATIONAL  SOCIALIST  MOVEMENTS        293 

that  the  Utopian  experiments  had  been  so  universally 
regarded  as  examples  of  Socialism  in  practice  that  it  took 
an  unusually  long  time  to  make  the  American  people  regard 
it  as  a  political  movement  having  nothing  in  common  with 
Communism  in  general  and  sex-communism  in  particular. 
Fostered  by  Bellamy's  Looking  Backward,  Utopian  ideas 
were  uppermost  in  the  minds  of  many  American  Socialists 
as  lately  as  1897,  when  the  newly  organized  "Social  Democ- 
racy of  America"  seriously  contemplated  the  colonization 
of  one  of  the  Western  States,  and  the  establishment  there 
of  a  cooperative  commonwealth. 

The  German  period:  The  reasons  which  led  to  the  selec- 
t  on  of  the  United  States  as  the  country  in  which  to  make 
the  greatest  experiments  with  Fourierism,  Owenism  and 
similar  Utopian  movements  operated  to  bring  hither  many 
of  the  European  revolutionists  who,  finding  it  necessary  to 
leave  Europe,  found  the  democratic  institutions  of  America 
and  the  inducement  of  very  cheap  land  attractive.  Thus 
the  newer  Socialism  appeared  in  the  United  States  almost 
as  early  as  in  Europe  itself.  Weitling,  whom  we  have  con- 
sidered as  linking  the  Utopian  and  Marxian  movements, 
came  to  the  United  States  in  1846  and  started  the  Volks- 
tribun,  a  weekly  newspaper  for  the  advocacy  of  Socialism. 
The  revolutionary  agitation  in  Europe  soon  called  him  back, 
however,  and  he  participated  in  the  uprisings  of  1848, 
returning  almost  immediately  to  the  United  States.  In  1850 
he  established  another  paper,  Die  Republik  der  Arbeiter, 
and  in  October  of  the  same  year  organized  a  national  con- 
vention, which  met  at  Philadelphia.  Forty-two  organiza- 
tions of  German  workingmen  were  represented  at  the  con- 
vention, their  aggregate  membership  being  about  4,400. 
Many  of  these  members  were  exiles  who  had  fled  from 
Germany  after  the  failure  of  the  Revolution  of  1848.  The 
subjects  discussed  at  the  convention  included  labor  exchange 
banks,  political  party  organization,  education,  propaganda, 
and  the  general  subject  of  communist  colonies,  a  program 
which  reflects  the  curious  mixture  of  old  and  new  ideas  then 
prevailing. 

For  the  next  twenty-five  years  Socialist  discussion  was 
confined  almost  entirely  to  German  immigrants.  The 
German  athletic  associations,  the  Turnvereine,  were  always 


294  ELEMENTS   OF  SOCIALISM 

centres  of  Socialist  activity,  and  the  German  trade  unions 
generally  favored  Socialism  and  independent  working  class 
action.  In  1868  the  Social  Party  of  New  York  and  Vicinity 
conducted  a  campaign  upon  a  platform  resembling  that  of 
the  International  in  many  respects,  and  polled  a  very  insig- 
nificant vote.  The  more  active  and  aggressive  members  of 
this  party  formed,  immediately  after  the  election,  the 
General  German  Workingmen's  Association,  which  in  Feb- 
ruary, 1869,  became  a  section  of  the  International,  known 
as  Section  One  of  New  York.  Other  sections  were  rapidly 
organized,  and  by  1872  Marx  realized  that  his  main  strength 
was  not  in  Europe,  but  in  North  America,  hence  the  decision 
to  remove  the  headquarters  of  the  International  to  New  York. 

The  Socialist  Labor  Party:  Following  the  crisis  of  1873, 
and  the  consequent  business  depression,  small  Socialist 
parties  were  formed  in  New  York,  Chicago,  and  Cincinnati, 
chiefly  among  German  workingmen,  and  in  1876,  one  week 
after  the  disbanding  of  the  International,  representatives  of 
these  parties  met  in  Philadelphia  and  organized  the  Working- 
men's  Party  of  the  United  States,  with  a  Marxist  program. 
In  1877  the  party  name  was  changed  to  Socialist  Labor 
Party  of  North  America. 

The  movement  was  still  a  transplanted  German  party. 
Its  members  were  not  familiar  with  American  conditions. 
Consequently,  the  party  failed  to  gain  a  foothold  in  the 
American  trade  unions  or  to  attract  any  permanent  American 
followers  in  its  political  campaigns.  The  American  mind 
did  not  readily  grasp  the  abstract  theoretical  points  which 
the  Germans  were  fond  of  discussing,  and  the  Germans 
neither  understood  nor  cared  about  the  special  political 
problems  which  were  uppermost  in  the  American  mind. 
The  radical  elements  in  the  United  States  were  too  much 
absorbed  in  the  Greenback,  Single  Tax  and  Populist  move- 
ments to  listen  to  discussions  of  surplus-value  and  the 
materialistic  conception  of  history. 

In  1880,  after  the  Greenback  Party  had  come  into  closer 
touch  with  the  labor  movement,  the  Socialist  Labor  Party 
decided  to  support  the  Greenback  candidates.  Immediately 
after  the  presidential  election  the  alliance  was  dissolved, 
the  Socialists  being  profoundly  dissatisfied  with  the  tactics 
of  their  Greenback  allies.  The  only  other  alliance  with  non- 


THE  NATIONAL  SOCIALIST  MOVEMENTS        295 

Socialists  ever  made  by  the  Socialist  Labor  Party,  if  we 
except  a  few  isolated  local  instances,  was  in  1886  when  the 
party  joined  with  the  United  Labor  Party  in  the  nomina- 
tion of  Henry  George  for  mayor  of  New  York. 

Conflict  with  the  Anarchists :  The  energies  of  the  Socialist 
Labor  Party  for  the  first  ten  years  of  its  existence  were 
largely  devoted  to  a  struggle  with  the  growing  Anarchist 
movement,  which  was  likewise  transplanted  from  Europe. 
The  Anarchists  found  a  leader  in  John  Most,  an  expelled 
member  of  the  German  Social  Democracy,  who  came  to 
the  United  States  in  1882  after  serving  sixteen  months  in 
an  English  prison.  Most  started  a  vigorous  Anarchist  cam- 
paign, and  found  it  easy  to  persuade  many  of  the  discouraged 
German  workingmen  that  political  action  was  hopeless  in 
America.  He  made  many  converts  among  the  Socialists 
and  two  of  the  party  papers  went  over  to  the  Anarchists. 
The  party  was  so  weakened  that  all  except  two  of  the  party 
papers  were  forced  to  suspend  publication.  By  1884,  how- 
ever, the  party  had  begun  to  recover  its  lost  strength  and  in 
the  next  two  years  doubled  the  number  of  its  local  organiza- 
tions. Then  came  the  riot  in  Chicago  and  the  execution  of 
the  Anarchist  leaders,  an  event  which  Socialists  in  common 
with  many  non-Socialists  have  always  regarded  as  judicial 
murder.  Anarchism  in  the  United  States  never  recovered 
from  that  catastrophe,  and  the  field  was  thereafter  relatively 
free  for  Socialist  propaganda  and  growth.  In  1892  the 
Socialist  Labor  Party  nominated  Simon  Wing  for  president 
of  the  United  States  and  Charles  H.  Matchett  for  vice- 
president,  the  ticket  polling  21,512  votes  in  six  States.  In 
1896  the  vote  increased  to  36,275,  and  in  the  Congressional 
elections  of  1898  the  Socialist  Labor  Party  reached  its 
maximum  voting  strength  with  82,204  votes. 

The  Socialist  Labor  Party  and  the  trade  unions :  Beginning 
in  1881  the  Socialists  for  several  years  made  desperate  efforts 
to  obtain  control  of  the  Knights  of  Labor,  but  without 
success.  When  the  American  Federation  of  Labor  was 
formed  in  1886  the  capture  of  that  organization  was  similarly 
attempted.  The  theory  of  the  Socialist  Labor  Party  was 
that  the  trade  union  represented  a  less  developed  form  of 
class  consciousness  than  the  political  organization.  That 
the  workers  were  organized  into  unions  was  a  good  thing, 


296  ELEMENTS   OF  SOCIALISM 

a  sign  that  they  were  in  some  degree  class  conscious,  but 
they  needed  to  be  taught  the  necessary  shortcomings  of 
trade  unionism,  the  insufficiency  of  their  aims,  and  the 
superiority  of  the  Socialist  method  of  political  action.  They 
attempted  to  get  the  unions  to  endorse  the  candidates  of 
the  Socialist  Labor  Party  and  even  to  make  acceptance  of 
Socialist  principles  a  condition  of  membership.  Naturally, 
the  leaders  of  the  unions,  who  were  aiming  to  unite  all 
workers,  regardless  of  party  or  creed,  vigorously  opposed 
these  attempts,  with  the  result  that  bitter  hostility  developed 
between  the  two  wings  of  the  working  class  movement. 
Matters  reached  a  climax  when,  in  1896,  under  the  leader- 
ship of  Daniel  De  Leon,  the  Socialist  Labor  Party  started  a 
rival  organization  to  the  American  Federation  of  Labor, 
called  the  Socialist  Trade  and  Labor  Alliance.  This  body 
by  its  bitter  opposition  to  the  trade  union  movement  made 
it  practically  impossible  for  a  responsible  union  member 
to  become  a  Socialist,  and  developed  in  the  minds  of  the 
active  trade  unionists  a  contempt  for  Socialism  which  has 
not  yet  wholly  disappeared.  After  a  brief  existence,  during 
which  time  it  demonstrated  the  folly  of  attempting  to  base 
trade  unionism  upon  political  beliefs  and  affiliations,  the 
Socialist  Trade  and  Labor  Alliance  died. 

The  majority  of  the  members  of  the  Socialist  Labor  Party 
was  never  in  favor  of  these  tactics.  Those  who  opposed 
them,  however,  were  suppressed  and  expelled.  Whole  sec- 
tions were  either  suspended  for  long  periods  or  expelled  by 
a  highly  centralized  executive.  Lucien  Sanial  aptly  char- 
acterized this  period  as  "a  burlesque  Reign  of  Terror." 
Many  of  the  foremost  leaders  in  the  Socialist  Party  of  to-day 
were  expelled  from  the  Socialist  Labor  Party  for  opposing 
its  policy  toward  the  unions — some  of  them  being  ex- 
pelled after  they  had  voluntarily  resigned  in  despair  or 
disgust. 

Then  came  revolt.  In  New  York  the  opposition  to  De 
Leon  grew  and  he  and  his  supporters  were  ousted  from  office 
and  their  successors  elected.  But  De  Leon  and  his  associates 
refused  to  submit  to  the  majority  and  a  split  occurred. 
There  were  now  two  parties,  each  claiming  to  be  the  Socialist 
Labor  Party,  each  having  an  official  organ  called  The  People, 
and  each  spending  most  of  its  time  denouncing  the  other. 


THE   NATIONAL   SOCIALIST   MOVEMENTS         297 

Never  at  any  time  has  the  Socialist  movement  been  dragged 
so  low  as  it  was  in  the  United  States  during  this  period. 

Formation  of  the  Socialist  Party:  In  the  meantime  a  new 
movement  had  started  in  the  West.  It  was  at  first  inclined 
toward  Utopianism  and  the  colonization  of  some  Western 
States  was  seriously  advocated.  In  1898  a  large  part  of  the 
membership  abandoned  this  idea  and,  under  the  leadership 
of  Eugene  V.  Debs  and  Victor  L.  Berger,  organized  the  Social 
Democratic  Party  of  America.  The  party  grew  rapidly 
and  in  1899  elected  two  members  to  the  Massachusetts 
Legislature,  the  mayors  of  Haverhill  and  Brockton  in  that 
State,  and  a  number  of  local  officials  in  Wisconsin. 

Both  the  factions  which  claimed  to  be  the  Socialist  Labor 
Party  nominated  candidates  at  the  presidential  election  in 
1900,  but  the  anti-De  Leon  faction  at  once  made  overtures 
to  the  Social  Democratic  Party,  looking  to  the  union  of  the 
two  bodies.  A  joint  committee  decided  upon  terms  of  union 
and  the  nomination  of  Eugene  V.  Debs  of  the  Social  Demo- 
cratic Party  for  president  and  Job  Harriman  of  the  Socialist 
Labor  Party  for  vice-president.  This  agreement  was  rejected 
by  the  members  of  the  former  party  by  a  narrow  margin, 
and  an  embarrassing  situation  was  the  result.  However,  a 
temporary  agreement  was  made  and  both  bodies  supported 
the  candidature  of  Debs  and  Harriman,  the  De  Leon  wing 
of  the  Socialist  Labor  Party  nominating  Joseph  F.  Malloney 
and  Val.  Remmel.  The  vote  for  Debs  and  Harriman  was 
97,730,  more  than  the  Socialist  Labor  Party  had  ever  polled. 
The  vote  of  the  Socialist  Labor  Party  fell  to  39,739.  In  1901 
the  elements  which  had  united  in  nominating  Debs  and 
Harriman  held  a  unity  convention  and  established  the 
present  Socialist  Party. 

Recent  developments:  The  Socialist  party  more  than 
doubled  its  membership  in  the  first  three  years  of  its  existence, 
and  in  1904  it  polled  402,321  votes.  The  vote  was  undoubt- 
edly much  larger  than  the  real  voting  strength  of  the  party, 
a  great  many  Democratic  voters  having  voted  the  Socialist 
ticket  merely  as  a  protest  against  the  selection  of  a  con- 
servative candidate  by  their  own  party.  The  membership 
of  the  party  again  more  than  doubled  from  1904  to  1908, 
and  the  party  vote  of  424,483  in  the  latter  year  was  a  more 
reliable  measure  of  its  dependable  voting  strength.  The 


298  ELEMENTS   OF   SOCIALISM 

vote  of  the  Socialist  Labor  Party  in  the  same  year  fell  to 
13,825.  In  1910  the  Socialist  Party  elected  thirty  mayors, 
the  most  important  of  these  being  the  mayor  of  Milwaukee, 
in  which  city  the  Socialists  elected  a  majority  of  the  city 
council.  The  vote  in  the  Congressional  elections  rose  to 
604,756  and  Victor  L.  Berger  was  elected  to  the  House  of 
Representatives,  being  the  first  Socialist  to  enter  Congress. 
The  party  also  succeeded  in  electing  twelve  representatives 
and  two  senators  to  the  Wisconsin  State  Legislature,  and 
one  representative  each  in  Massachusetts,  Pennsylvania, 
Minnesota  and  North  Dakota.  The  party  membership 
increased  from  41,000  in  1908  to  110,000  at  the  end  of  1911, 
a  gain  which  is  in  many  respects  more  significant  than  the 
increased  vote.1 

Party  organization :  The  unit  of  organization  in  the  Social- 
ist Party  is  the  "Local,"  composed  of  five  or  more  dues- 
paying  members.  Once  a  local  has  been  formed  membership 
in  the  party  is  obtained  only  by  vote  of  its  members  and  the 
applicant  must  sign  a  pledge  declaring  acceptance  of  the 
party's  program  and  principles  and  the  fact  (that  the  appli- 
cant has  severed  all  connections  with  other  political  parties. 
The  locals  are  united  into  State  organizations,  which  are  in 
turn  united  into  a  national  organization.  The  affairs  of  the 
national  party  are  administered  by  a  national  committee, 
composed  of  State  representatives  elected  by  the  members 
in  the  various  states,  and  a  national  executive  committee. 
All  the  acts  of  these  committees  are  subject  to  party  refer- 
endum upon  the  demand  of  a  small  percentage  of  the 
members. 

The  financial  support  of  the  party  is  derived  from  the 
monthly  "dues"  of  its  members,  supplemented  by  voluntary 
contributions.  The  monthly  membership  fee  differs  in 
various  parts  of  the  country,  but  twenty-five  cents  per 
month  is  the  usual  fee.  This  is  automatically  divided  among 
the  national,  state,  and  local  organizations  by  means  of  a 
system  of  dues  stamps.  These  are  issued  by  the  national 
executive  committee  and  sold  to  the  state  committees,  the 
amount  so  derived  maintaining  the  national  organization. 

lln  the  local  elections  of  November,  1911,  a  number  of  Socialist 
mayors  were  elected  and  Socialist  representatives  chosen  in  New  York 
and  Rhode  Island. 


THE  NATIONAL  SOCIALIST   MOVEMENTS        299 

The  stamps  are  then  sold  by  the  state  committees  to  the 
local  organizations  at  a  profit,  and  by  the  local  organiza- 
tions to  the  members  are  a  further  profit.  The  national 
state  and  local  organizations  are  thus  each  assured  of 
financial  support. 

The  Socialist  Party  and  the  trade  unions:  As  we  have 
seen,  before  the  rise  of  the  present  Socialist  Party  the  trade 
union  movement  had  been  largely  alienated  from  the  Social- 
ist movement  as  a  result  of  the  tactics  adopted  by  the  Social- 
ist Labor  Party.  The  attitude  of  the  Socialist  Party  toward 
the  unions  was  clearly  defined  by  the  national  convention 
of  the  party  in  1908,  and  again  in  1910  at  the  special  con- 
gress of  the  party: 

"The  Socialist  Party  does  not  seek  to  dictate  to  organized 
labor  in  matters  of  internal  organization  and  union  policy. 
It  recognizes  the  necessary  autonomy  of  the  union  movement 
on  the  economic  field,  as  it  insists  on  maintaining  its  own 
autonomy  on  the  political  field.  It  is  confident  that  in  the 
school  of  experience  organized  labor  will  as  rapidly  as 
possible  develop  the  most  effective  forms  of  organization 
and  methods  of  action.  ...  It  finds  reason  to  hope  for 
closer  solidarity  on  the  economic  field  and  for  more  effective 
cooperation  between  organized  labor  and  the  Socialist  Party, 
the  two  wings  of  the  movement  for  working  class  eman- 
cipation."1 

The  adoption  of  this  policy,  and  the  consequent  abandon- 
ment of  attempts  to  "capture"  the  American  Federation  of 
Labor,  have  resulted  in  bringing  about  a  much  better  under- 
standing between  the  party  and  the  trade  unions.  But  the 
Socialist  Party  in  the  United  States,  like  most  of  the  Euro- 
pean parties,  has  its  right  and  left  wings,  its  "Revolutionists" 
on  the  one  hand  and  its  "Opportunists"  on  the  other.  The 
former  element  tends  toward  Syndicalism,  and  to  the  advo- 
cacy of  the  general  strike  as  a  better  method  of  class  warfare 
than  political  action.  The  conflict  between  these  two 
elements  of  the  party  is  largely  centred  upon  the  question 
of  the  relation  of  the  party  to  the  trade  unions.  The  domi- 
nant majority,  following  the  tactics  of  Marx  and  the 
German  Social  Democrats,  seeks  to  obtain  the  friendship 

1  Proceedings  National  Convention  Socialist  Party,  1908,  p.  95;  Pro- 
ceedings National  Congress,  1910,  pp.  277-289. 


300  ELEMENTS   OF  SOCIALISM 

and  cooperation  of  the  American  Federation  of  Labor  and 
its  affiliated  unions.  The  "revolutionary  minority,"  on  the 
other  hand,  refuses  to  recognize  the  trade  unions  as  forming 
an  equal  part  of  the  general  movement  of  the  working  class, 
the  "other  arm"  of  the  fighting  proletariat,  and  demands 
that  the  party  shall  do  its  best  to  force  the  unions  to  give 
up  their  present  policies  and  change  their  form  of  organiza- 
tion. The  outcome  of  this  controversy  cannot  at  this  time 
be  predicted. 

The  movement  among  women:  The  Socialist  Party  has 
always  admitted  women  to  membership  upon  equal  terms 
with  men,  and  many  women  hold  prominent  positions  in  the 
party.  At  the  convention  of  1908  a  National  Women's 
Committee  was  established  by  the  party  to  take  charge  of 
the  special  propaganda  work  among  women. 

Press,  literature  and  education:  The  party  press  is  not 
owned  directly  by  the  party,  as  in  Germany  and  some  other 
countries.  The  fear  of  placing  too  much  power  in  the  hands 
of  an  official  body  has  operated  thus  far  to  cause  the  defeat 
of  all  propositions  looking  to  the  establishment  of  party- 
owned  papers.  There  are  about  two  hundred  Socialist 
papers  and  magazines,  a  majority  of  them  owned  by  cooper- 
ative associations  of  Socialist  party  members,  a  few  by  State 
and  local  organizations,  the  others  by  individuals. 

The  literature  of  the  movement  has  shown  an  enormous 
improvement  during  the  ten  years  of  the  party's  existence, 
and  in  extent  and  importance  takes  rank  with  the  literature 
of  almost  any  other  country  with  the  exception  of  Germany. 
The  works  of  American  Socialist  writers  are  translated  into 
other  languages  and  widely  read. 

The  party  carries  on  an  almost  incredible  amount  of 
educational  work  by  means  of  travelling  lecturers  and  the 
distribution  of  millions  of  pamphlets  and  books  each  year. 
"Study  Courses"  are  furnished  to  the  local  organizations 
and  in  this  way  thousands  of  members  are  induced  to  make 
a  systematic  study  of  Socialist  theory. 

Allied  Socialist  organizations:  Closely  allied  to  the  So- 
cialist Party,  though  not  directly  affiliated  with  it,  are  the 
Young  People's  Socialist  Leagues  and  the  Socialist  Sunday- 
schools.  The  former  are  organizations  of  young  people 
between  the  ages  of  fifteen  and  twenty.  They  combine 


THE  NATIONAL  SOCIALIST   MOVEMENTS        301 

recreation  and  social  features  with  the  study  of  Socialism 
by  means  of  debates,  lectures  and  reading.  In  general  they 
are  patterned  after  the  German  organizations  of  young  people 
and  are  favored  by  the  party.  On  the  other  hand,  the  Sunday- 
schools,  for  young  children,  are  regarded  with  some  sus- 
picion. As  Mr.  Hillquit  said  at  the  1910  Congress,  "The 
mind  of  the  child  is  too  sacred  to  be  made  the  object  of 
rough  experiments,  and  Socialist  Sunday-schools  conducted 
with  insufficient  skill  or  method  often  do  more  harm  than 
good."1  The  Sunday-schools  are  generally  carried  on  by 
individuals  or  local  committees.  The  party  as  a  whole  has 
never  approved  them. 

Among  the  larger  schools  conducted  in  the  interest  of  the 
Socialist  movement,  the  Rand  School  of  Social  Science  in 
New  York  City  is  the  most  efficient  and  the  most  important. 
The  Intercollegiate  Socialist  Society  is  a  society  for  the 
promotion  of  an  intelligent  study  of  Socialism.  It  is  not, 
therefore,  committed  to  the  advocacy  of  Socialism.  Promi- 
nent non-Socialists  have  always  been  closely  identified  with 
it.  At  the  end  of  1911  the  society  had  "study  chapters"  in 
thirty-eight  American  colleges  and  universities. 


(8)  RUSSIA 

Difficulties:  The  Socialist  movement  in  Russia  is  carried 
on  under  difficulties  such  as  the  Socialists  of  no  other  country 
have  had  to  face.  The  heroism  of  the  men  and  women  who 
have  built  up  a  great  movement  under  the  cruellest  despot- 
ism of  modern  times  has  been  rarely  equalled  and  never 
surpassed.  From  the  general  restrictions  forbidding  meet- 
ings and  the  circulation  of  Socialist  literature  to  the  summary 
execution  and  arbitrary  imprisonment  or  exile  of  active 
participants  in  the  movement,  every  device  that  tyranny 
could  invent  has  been  used  to  check  and  crush  the  Socialist 
movement. 

Beginning  of  the  movement :  The  first  approach  to  modern 
Socialist  thought  appears  in  connection  with  the  agitation 
for  the  emancipation  of  the  serfs,  especially  in  the  writings 
of  Alexander  Herzen  and  Nicholas  Chernyschefsky.  Herzen 

1  Proceedings  National  Congress,  1910,  p.  68. 


302  ELEMENTS  OF  SOCIALISM 

was  an  expatriated  nobleman  of  wealth  who  published  in 
London  a  magazine  called  Kolokol  (Bell).  He  died  in  Geneva 
in  1869.  Chernyschefsky  was  the  editor  of  an  influential 
magazine  who  spent  many  years  in  Siberian  exile  and  re- 
turned to  Russia  an  old  man,  physically  and  mentally 
wrecked.  From  1860  to  1870  Nihilism  flourished  in  Russia. 
The  word  "Nihilism"  was  first  used  by  a  famous  Russian 
novelist  to  ridicule  the  new  school  of  thought  with  its  crude 
materialism  and  negation  of  all  established  beliefs.  Nihilism 
served  the  Socialist  movement  in  one  important  respect. 
It  was  wholly  an  intellectual  force,  and  was  not  at  all  con- 
nected with  the  Socialist  movement,  but  it  caused  a  great 
many  of  the  younger  men  and  women  of  Russia  to  call  the 
existing  order  into  question  and  fostered  a  thirst  for  positive 
knowledge. 

This  longing  for  positive  knowledge  sent  a  large  number 
of  students  of  both  sexes  forth  to  Switzerland  and  other 
countries  to  study  in  the  great  universities.  There  they  fell 
under  the  influence  of  the  teaching  of  such  men  as  Herzen, 
Bakunin  and  Peter  Lavroff — the  latter  a  disciple  of  Marx. 
The  government  became  alarmed  at  the  prospect  of  having 
its  young  men  and  women  made  Socialists,  and  in  1873 
ordered  all  the  students  to  return  at  once  to  Russia  under 
pain  of  exile.  Many  of  the  students  refused  to  obey  the 
order,  but  most  of  them  did,  and  in  a  little  while  the  Russian 
government  found  that  it  had  to  contend  with  a  large  num- 
ber of  active  Socialist  propagandists.  During  the  five  years, 
1873-78,  these  propagandists  were  busy  carrying  on  the 
twofold  work  of  general  education  and  Socialist  propaganda, 
especially  among  the  peasants.  The  government  answered 
with  relentless  persecution,  and  the  Socialist  propagandists 
were  executed,  imprisoned  or  exiled  to  Siberia,  frequently 
without  trial.  By  1878  the  young  movement  was  checked 
and  its  propaganda  was  abandoned. 

The  rise  of  terrorism :  In  that  year  General  Trepoff ,  the 
military  commandant  of  St.  Petersburg,  who  had  been  par- 
ticularly brutal  and  inhuman,  was  shot  by  a  young  woman, 
Vera  Sassulich,  as  an  act  of  revenge  for  his  brutal  treatment 
of  a  political  prisoner.  Arrested  and  tried  by  jury  for  the 
offense,  the  young  woman  was  acquitted.  Encouraged  by 
this  outcome  of  the  trial,  and  forbidden  to  use  the  methods 


THE   NATIONAL   SOCIALIST   MOVEMENTS         303 

of  peaceful  propaganda,  the  more  daring  of  the  Socialists 
decided  to  copy  the  example  of  Vera  Sassulich  and  institute 
a  reign  of  terrorism.  A  small  handful  of  idealists,  they 
dared  challenge  the  power  of  Russian  autocracy  with  all 
its  police  and  soldiers.  For  three  years  they  carried  on  a 
most  remarkable  movement  of  terrorism,  culminating  in  the 
assassination  of  Alexander  II,  in  March,  1881,  by  Sophia 
Perovskaia  and  her  associates.  This  brought  the  first  pe- 
riod of  terrorism  to  an  end.  The  revolutionists  had  hoped 
that  the  killing  of  the  Czar  would  be  the  signal  for  a  general 
uprising,  but  they  were  disappointed.  Russia  was  not  ready 
for  such  an  uprising,  and  within  a  short  time  the  revolution- 
ary organization  was  dead. 

Social  democracy  and  organized  labor:  In  the  early 
nineties,  as  a  natural  result  of  economic  development,  labor 
unions  appeared  in  the  growing  industrial  centres.  This  new 
movement  of  organized  labor  fulfilled  in  a  measure  the  hopes 
of  a  small  group  of  men  and  women,  Marxian  Socialists,  who 
had  declared  during  the  terroristic  period  that  the  Socialist 
movement  would  never  become  a  real  force  until  the  eco- 
nomic development  of  the  country  made  the  organization 
of  labor  unions  necessary.  Meantime,  they  carried  on  the 
work  of  laying  the  foundations  for  a  political  party.  When 
the  labor  unions  appeared  in  considerable  numbers  an 
impetus  was  given  to  this  political  movement,  and  the  Social 
Democratic  Party  soon  had  local  committees  in  many 
Russian  cities,  and  the  movement  was  further  strengthened 
by  the  organization  of  Jewish,  Polish,  Lettish  and  Armenian 
Social  Democrats.  By  the  year  1900  the  Social  Democratic 
Party,  despite  the  fact  that  it  was  compelled  to  work  in 
secret,  and  was  ruthlessly  persecuted,  had  developed  con- 
siderable power.  It  was  this  party  which  led  the  revolu- 
tionary outbreak  at  the  end  of  1905. 

Revival  of  terrorism:  But  the  revival  of  the  Socialist 
movement  brought  with  it  the  revival  of  terrorism  on  the 
part  of  some  of  the  revolutionists.  Various  groups  of  revolu- 
tionists who  relied  upon  terrorism  as  the  most  effective  weapon 
with  which  to  meet  the  cruel  and  repressive  autocracy 
appeared  in  various  parts  of  the  country,  and  in  1901  united 
into  the  party  of  Socialist  Revolutionists.  It  is  this  party 
which  has  carried  on  the  campaign  of  terrorism  in  recent 


304  ELEMENTS   OF  SOCIALISM 

years,  and  most  of  the  political  assassinations  are  attributed 
to  it. 

Strength  of  the  movement:  It  is  impossible  to  measure 
the  strength  or  the  growth  of  Socialism  in  Russia,  owing  to 
the  fact  that  only  secret  methods  of  agitation  and  organiza- 
tion are  possible.  The  various  Socialist  parties  have  par- 
ticipated in  all  the  Duma  elections  since  the  promulgation 
of  the  Constitution  of  1905.  To  the  First  Duma,  in  1906, 
several  members  of  the  Social  Democratic  Party  and  the 
Socialist  Revolutionists  were  elected,  despite  the  fact  that 
the  two  parties  had  officially  declared  a  boycott  of  the 
election  and  urged  their  members  not  to  participate  in  it. 
Including  with  these  the  peasant  Socialists  and  the  labor 
union  representatives  there  were  over  one  hundred  members 
in  the  labor  group  of  the  First  Duma. 

In  the  Second  Duma  elections,  in  1907,  the  Socialist 
parties  decided  to  participate,  in  spite  of  the  bitter  persecu- 
tion which  had  been  directed  by  the  government  against  the 
working  class  members  of  the  first  Duma.  Of  the  440 
members  of  the  Second  Duma  no  less  than  132  were  elected 
by  the  Socialists.  Practically  all  of  these  representatives 
of  the  Socialist  movement  were  later  imprisoned  or  exiled. 
This  Duma,  like  the  first,  lasted  only  a  short  time,  when  it 
was  dissolved  by  the  authorities. 

A  new  and  glaringly  undemocratic  constitution  was 
promulgated  for  the  Third  Duma.  The  electorate  was 
divided  into  five  curiae,  giving  one  representative  to  every 
230  of  the  landed  nobility,  one  for  every  1,000  of  the  greater 
capitalists,  one  for  every  15,000  of  the  smaller  capitalists 
and  tradesmen,  one  for  every  60,000  of  the  peasant  class, 
and  one  for  every  125,000  of  the  artisan  class.  Furthermore, 
in  the  case  of  the  peasants  and  artisans  the  elections  were 
made  indirect.  The  Socialist  Revolutionists  under  the  cir- 
cumstances not  only  declined  to  participate  in  the  elections, 
but  waged  a  bitter  campaign  against  them.  The  Social 
Democrats,  on  the  other  hand,  decided  to  participate  in  the 
elections,  despite  everything.  They  elected  nineteen  mem- 
bers out  of  a  total  of  427. 

These  figures  are  only  available  as  indicating  the  tre- 
mendous spread  of  Socialist  ideas  in  Russia:  they  afford  no 
real  measure  of  the  strength  of  the  movement.  The  bulk 


THE   NATIONAL  SOCIALIST   MOVEMENTS         305 

of  the  propaganda  of  Socialism  has  to  be  carried  on  by 
literary  agencies,  and  the  publication  or  distribution  of 
Socialist  literature  of  any  kind  being  a  crime  in  Russia,  this 
work  involves  terrible  peril  to  those  who  engage  in  it.  We 
get  some  idea  of  the  strength  of  the  movement  when  we 
consider  that  from  1905  to  1910  tens  of  thousands  of  Social- 
ists were  either  imprisoned,  exiled  to  Siberia,  executed,  or 
compelled  to  flee  from  the  country  to  escape  from  these. 
Another  indication  of  the  immense  strength  of  Russian 
Socialism  is  the  fact  that  in  1909  the  Central  Committee 
of  the  Socialist  Revolutionists  alone  spent  $40,000  upon  the 
distribution  of  more  than  two  million  Socialist  leaflets, 
pamphlets  and  books,  and  that  its  total  income  was  almost 
$85,000. 

(9)  FINLAND 

Political  conditions:  Finland  was  ceded  to  Russia  by 
Sweden  in  1809,  and  was  granted  a  relatively  liberal  constitu- 
tion which  gave  the  Finns  complete  autonomy  in  all  local 
affairs.  During  the  greater  part  of  the  nineteenth  century, 
therefore,  Finland  was  practically  an  independent  State  with 
the  Czar  of  Russia  as  its  Grand  Duke.  Beginning  with  the 
year  1894,  under  the  administration  of  the  notorious  Gover- 
nor-general Bobrikoff,  Russia  inaugurated  a  policy  of  Rus- 
sianizing Finland.  In  1898,  in  violation  of  his  oath,  the 
Czar  issued  a  decree  asserting  the  power  of  the  Imperial 
Government  over  many  of  the  internal  affairs  of  Finland, 
particularly  over  military  affairs.  The  Finnish  people  have 
resisted  every  attempt  to  destroy  their  liberties,  and  in  1901 
completely  frustrated  the  attempt  of  the  Russian  govern- 
ment to  destroy  their  militia  system  and  establish  Russian 
military  law. 

Rise  of  the  Socialist  movement:  There  was  no  organized 
Socialist  movement  in  Finland  until  after  the  decree  of  1898. 
In  the  next  year  after  that  event  a  Labor  Party  was  organ- 
ized, which  in  1903  changed  its  name  to  Social  Democratic 
Party.  The  new  party  carried  on  a  tremendous  agitation  for 
the  extension  of  the  suffrage  and  other  measures  of  demo- 
cratic reform,  and  in  1905,  mainly  as  a  result  of  that  agita- 
tion, a  new  act  was  passed  granting  full  and  equal  suffrage 


306  ELEMENTS   OF  SOCIALISM 

to  all  adult  persons  over  twenty-four  years  of  age,  regardless 
of  sex,  with  proportional  representation.  This  makes  the 
constitution  of  Finland  the  most  democratic  of  any  country 
in  the  world. 

In  the  elections  of  1907,  the  first  in  which  the  Social 
Democratic  Party  participated,  the  party  vote  was  329,946, 
being  36.7  per  cent  of  the  total  number  of  votes  cast.  The 
number  of  Socialists  elected  was  eighty  out  of  a  total  of  two 
hundred.  The  Diet  was  dissolved  by  the  Russian  Governor- 
general  in  1908,  in  1909,  and  again  in  1910,  and  each  time 
the  Socialists  polled  a  larger  percentage  of  the  votes  and 
elected  a  larger  proportion  of  the  members  of  the  Diet. 
In  1910,  when  the  present  Diet  was  elected,  the  Socialists 
polled  forty  per  cent  of  the  total  vote  and  elected  eighty-six 
members,  of  whom  ten  were  women. 

The  decree  of  1909:  Backed  up  by  a  subservient  Duma, 
the  Czar  issued  a  new  decree  in  1909,  practically  abolishing 
the  Finnish  constitution,  providing  for  the  representation  of 
Finland  in  the  Russian  Duma,  and  reducing  the  Finnish 
Diet  to  the  status  of  a  Provincial  Assembly.  The  Finns 
have  with  remarkable  courage  and  heroism  refused  thus  far 
to  recognize  the  decree  or  submit  to  it  in  any  manner. 

In  addition  to  the  parliamentary  strength  already  noted, 
the  Socialists  had  351  representatives  in  various  municipal 
councils  in  1910.  The  movement  in  Finland  is  essentially 
Marxian,  its  program  being  very  similar  to  that  of  the 
Austrian  movement.  The  party  membership  in  1908  was 
71,266.  The  party  has  a  very  powerful  press  and  enjoys 
the  full  confidence  of  the  trade  unions.  Upon  the  whole,  it 
may  be  said  that,  in  proportion  to  its  population,  Finland 
has  the  largest  and  strongest  of  the  national  Socialist  parties. 

(10)  THE  SCANDINAVIAN  COUNTRIES 

Sweden:  The  Swedish  Social  Democratic  Party  was 
founded  in  1889.  For  fifteen  years  the  party  devoted  itself 
almost  entirely  to  agitation  in  behalf  of  universal  suffrage. 
The  characteristic  method  of  the  Swedish  Socialists  has  been 
the  general  strike.  In  1897  the  party  elected  its  first  repre- 
sentative to  the  Riksdag,  and  in  1905,  after  the  granting  of 


THE  NATIONAL  SOCIALIST  MOVEMENTS        307 

a  partial  electoral  reform,  which  did  not  change  the  class 
character  of  the  Senate,  the  Socialists  elected  thirteen  mem- 
bers to  the  Riksdag,  as  against  four  in  the  preceding  elec- 
tion. In  1909,  after  a  further  extension  of  the  franchise, 
the  party  polled  75,000  votes,  or  twenty-four  per  cent  of 
the  total  vote  cast,  and  elected  thirty-six  members  out  of 
a  total  of  165.  The  long  and  disastrous  general  strike  of  1909 
greatly  weakened  the  party  by  reducing  its  membership  and 
its  financial  strength,  but  it  is  now  rapidly  improving.  In 
the  elections  of  1911  the  party  polled  170,299  votes  and 
elected  64  members  to  the  Riksdag. 

Norway :  The  first  entrance  of  representatives  of  the  Social- 
ist movement  into  the  Storthing,  the  Norwegian  Parlia- 
ment, was  in  1903,  when  the  Social  Democratic  Party  elected 
four  members,  including  Dr.  Erickson,  a  Lutheran  clergy- 
man, and  Professor  Berge,  the  only  Roman  Catholic  in  the 
Parliament.  The  total  vote  cast  for  the  candidates  of  the 
party  was  about  thirty  thousand.  The  Social  Democratic 
Party  was  founded  as  the  Labor  Party  in  1889. 

After  the  separation  of  Norway  from  Sweden,  the  Social- 
ists worked  hard  for  a  republic,  but  were  defeated.  In  1906 
the  Socialist  vote  was  increased  by  fifty  per  cent  and  ten 
members  were  elected  to  the  Storthing.  In  1909  the  party 
polled  90,500  votes  out  of  a  total  of  345,000  and  elected 
eleven  members  to  the  Storthing  out  of  a  total  of  123.  The 
Social  Democrats  had  in  1910  no  less  than  873  representatives 
in  municipal  councils.  The  party  in  Norway  has  had  the 
advantage  of  working  under  a  very  democratic  constitution. 
There  is  universal  manhood  suffrage  above  the  age  of 
twenty-five  years,  and  partial  woman  suffrage.  The  Social- 
ist press  of  Norway  is  very  influential. 

Denmark:  The  Socialist  movement  in  Denmark  began 
with  the  old  International,  and  the  party  newspaper,  the 
Social  Demokraten,  dates  from  1871,  and  is  one  of  the  oldest 
Socialist  papers  now  in  existence.  It  has  a  circulation  of 
56,000.  The  present  Social  Democratic  Party  was  estab- 
lished in  1878.  In  1889  it  elected  its  first  representative 
to  the  Folkething.  The  party  has  taken  an  active  part  in 
the  agrarian  struggles  of  Denmark,  and  has  the  support  of 
the  peasant  farmers  and  agricultural  laborers. 

In  1906  the  party  polled  77,000  votes  and  elected  twenty- 


308  ELEMENTS   OF   SOCIALISM 

four  members  to  the  People's  Chamber — the  Folkething — 
and  four  to  the  Senate.  In  1910  the  Socialist  vote  was  98,721, 
but  the  representation  in  both  chambers  of  Parliament 
remained  the  same.  There  are  114  members  in  the  lower 
house,  all  chosen  by  direct  suffrage,  and  66  in  the  upper 
house,  of  whom  only  twenty-seven  are  chosen  by  the  general 
voters.  The  Social  Democratic  Party  has  (1911)  more  than 
1,000  municipal  and  local  councillors.  The  Danish  Social 
Democratic  Party  has  the  record  of  having  polled  a  con- 
tinuous and  almost  uniform  increase  of  votes  at  every  tri- 
ennial election  since  1878. 


(11)  HOLLAND 

Domela  Nieuwenhuis :  The  Socialist  movement  in  Holland 
first  arose  in  1878,  under  the  leadership  of  Domela  Nieu- 
wenhuis, the  eloquent  Lutheran  minister  who  left  his 
pastorate  to  preach  Socialism.  The  movement  suffered  the 
bitterest  persecution,  but  in  1888  Nieuwenhuis  was  elected 
to  Parliament.  There  his  failure  to  make  headway  against 
the  older  parties  led  him  to  despair  of  parliamentary  action, 
and  in  1893  he  renounced  Socialism  and  declared  himself 
to  be  an  Anarchist-Communist.  The  present  Social  Demo- 
cratic Labor  Party  was  founded  in  1894  by  twelve  of  the 
most  prominent  Socialists  in  Holland,  who  were  at  once 
dubbed  "the  Twelve  Apostles"  by  their  opponents.  Among 
these  twelve  were  Pieter  J.  Troelstra,  a  lawyer,  who  is  still 
the  political  leader  of  the  party,  and  Henry  Van  Kol,  a  civil 
engineer,  who  is  the  ablest  of  the  party's  writers  and  speakers. 

In  1897  four  Socialists  were  elected  to  Parliament,  and  in 
1901  this  was  increased  to  seven,  at  which  number  it  has 
stood  ever  since,  despite  the  fact  that  the  popular  vote  cast 
for  the  party  increased  from  38,297  in  1901  to  82,494  in  1909. 
The  secession  of  Nieuwenhuis  and  his  followers  proved  to 
be  only  the  beginning  of  a  long  conflict  between  the  Social- 
ists and  the  Anarchists.  The  trade  union  movement  has  long 
been  largely  under  the  influence  of  the  Anarchists,  and  is 
opposed  to  parliamentary  action.  This  has  prevented  any 
general  support  of  the  party  by  the  organized  working 
class. 


THE   NATIONAL   SOCIALIST   MOVEMENTS         309 

Internal  dissensions:  In  1905  a  new  source  of  difficulty 
appeared.  The  reactionary  clerical  ministry  under  Dr. 
Kuyper,  who  had  suppressed  the  railway  strike  of  1903  with 
unnecessary  brutality,  was  defeated  by  a  narrow  margin, 
and  the  seven  Socialist  members  of  the  Chamber  found  them- 
selves holding  the  balance  of  power  between  the  new  coali- 
tion ministry  and  the  deposed  reactionaries,  as  neither  of  the 
other  groups  held  a  parliamentary  majority.  Having  to 
make  a  choice  between  the  two,  the  Socialists  voted  with  the 
government  and  sustained  it.  This  act  was  bitterly  con- 
demned by  the  extreme  radicals  in  the  party  as  an  abandon- 
ment of  the  principle  of  the  class  struggle.  As  a  result 
there  was  a  serious  controversy  which  culminated  in  the 
withdrawal  of  the  dissatisfied  elements  in  1908  and  the 
formation  of  a  new  party,  the  Social  Democratic  Party. 
Its  vote  in  the  elections  of  1909  was  1,888. 


(12)  SWITZERLAND 

Switzerland  with  its  democratic  constitution  and  tradi- 
tions has  from  the  first  days  of  the  movement  been  a  centre 
of  Socialist  activity,  especially  on  the  part  of  French, 
German  and  Russian  exiles  gathered  at  Geneva  and  Zurich. 
The  industrial  development  of  the  country,  however,  has 
been  slow  and  the  political  Socialist  movement  was  late  in 
starting.  Until  the  formation  of  the  Social  Democratic 
Party  in  1888,  Socialist  agitation  had  been  carried  on  through 
the  radical  workingmen's  societies,  of  which  the  Grutliverein 
was  the  most  important.  This  society  was  started  in  1838, 
and  until  recent  years  practically  dominated  the  working 
class  movement. 

In  1901  a  union  was  effected  between  the  Grutliverein,  the 
trade  unions  and  the  Social  Democratic  Party.  This  union 
has  not  been  entirely  satisfactory.  It  contains  many  non- 
Socialist  elements,  whose  influence  has  tended  to  modify 
the  Socialist  policy.  Recently,  however,  a  very  considerable 
number  of  the  non-Socialists  have  withdrawn.  At  the 
general  election  of  1908  the  party  increased  its  vote  from 
70,000  to  100,000  and  elected  seven  members  to  the  Federal 
Council. 


310  ELEMENTS  OF  SOCIALISM 

(13)  SPAIN 

Spain  is  the  most  backward  country  of  Western  Europe. 
It  has  never  been  highly  developed  industrially.  Two-thirds 
of  its  people  are  illiterate  and  still  suffer  from  the  domination 
of  a  political  church.  In  consequence,  the  Socialist  movement 
in  Spain  is  very  weak.  The  abuses  of  autocratic  government 
have  developed  one  of  the  strongest  Anarchist  movements  in 
Europe. 

The  present  Socialist  Labor  Party  was  organized  in  1888 
through  the  efforts  of  Pablo  Iglesias,  an  able  journalist  and 
agitator,  and  made  steady  progress  until  the  war  with  the 
United  States  in  1898.  In  the  industrial  crises  which  fol- 
lowed the  war  the  Socialist  Labor  Party  and  the  trade  unions 
suffered  great  losses  in  membership.  The  movement  revived 
again  after  about  six  years,  since  which  time  it  has  made 
very  steady  gains.  Following  the  uprisings  in  Barcelona 
in  1909,  and  the  subsequent  execution  of  Francisco  Ferrer, 
the  Socialists  entered  into  an  alliance  with  the  Republi- 
cans to  destroy  the  reactionary  clerical  ministry.  This  was 
accomplished,  and  with  the  assistance  of  the  Republicans, 
Iglesias  was  elected  to  the  Cortes  in  May,  1910,  as  the  first 
Socialist  representative.  A  number  of  the  Republican 
representatives  are  also  Socialists,  though  not  nominated 
by  the  Socialist  Labor  Party  or  regarded  as  representing  it. 

(14)  POLAND 

Since  the  final  dismemberment  of  Poland  in  1794  the  Polish 
people  have  lived  under  what  have  been  for  them  three 
foreign  despotisms,  Russia,  Prussia  and  Austria.  Each  of 
these  powerful  nations  has  attempted  to  crush  out  the  Polish 
national  spirit  by  force,  but  persecution  has  in  fact  united 
the  Polish  people  in  spirit  even  more  than  they  were  ever 
united  under  their  own  kings.  Consequently  the  Polish 
Socialist  movement  struggles  not  only  for  political  and 
economic  independence,  but  for  national  independence  also. 
As  one  of  their  leaders  has  said:  "The  social,  the  political 
and  the  national  revolution  are  for  us  one  and  indivisible"1 

*B.  A.  Jedrzejowski  in  The  Comrade,  Dec.,  1902. 


THE  NATIONAL  SOCIALIST  MOVEMENTS        311 

The  Socialist  movement  is  very  strong  in  Poland,  but  as 
in  Russian  Poland,  which  is  most  populous  and  in  which 
the  movement  is  strongest,  the  whole  party  organization  and 
party  activity  is  illegal,  it  is  impossible  to  give  a  numerical 
estimate  of  the  strength  of  the  Polish  Socialist  Party. 

The  Socialists  in  Galicia  (Austrian  Poland)  have  elected 
six  members  to  the  Austrian  Reichsrat  and  are  represented 
in  the  municipal  councils  of  both  Krakow  and  Lemberg. 
Aside  from  the  political  propaganda,  the  Galician  Socialists 
initiated  the  university  extension  movement  in  their  coun- 
try, and  have  undertaken  much  of  the  general  educational 
work  which  is  done  in  other  countries  by  the  government 
itself. 

The  Polish  Socialists  in  Germany  have  been  subjected 
to  more  severe  persecution  than  other  Socialists  in  that 
country,  because  of  the  national  and  language  complica- 
tions. They  have,  however,  built  up  a  strong  organization 
and  constitute  an  important  factor  in  the  movement. 


(15)  HUNGARY 

The  Socialist  movement  in  Hungary  dates  from  1867,  when 
an  association  of  workingmen  was  formed  on  the  lines  laid 
down  by  Lassalle.  Its  members  were  hunted  down  as  crim- 
inals, exiled,  shot  or  imprisoned,  and  it  was  not  until  1890 
that  the  movement  became  established.  Political  party 
organization  has  always  been  illegal  and  the  movement  has 
therefore  been  mainly  carried  on  in  the  trade  unions  which 
are  given  a  legal  standing.  The  membership  in  these  unions 
has  increased  rapidly  and  reached  130,120  in  1907,  when  an 
industrial  crisis  and  increased  government  and  capitalist 
persecution  reduced  the  membership  to  85,266  in  1909. 
About  300  unions  with  a  membership  of  about  20,000  are 
in  reality  Socialist  Party  locals  under  the  legal  form  of  unions. 

The  political  work  of  the  party  has  been  mainly  directed 
toward  the  attainment  of  the  franchise  for  the  working  class. 
It  has  been  impossible  to  contest  parliamentary  elections, 
and  only  in  the  municipalities,  where  the  franchise  is  some- 
what less  restricted,  were  any  Socialists  elected  to  office 
before  1910.  The  report  of  the  Socialist  Democratic  Party 


312  ELEMENTS   OF   SOCIALISM 

to  the  Congress  at  Copenhagen  in  that  year  showed  ninety- 
six  representatives  in  fifteen  communal  councils. 


(16)  OTHER  COUNTRIES 

In  nearly  every  country  of  the  world  we  find  at  least  the 
beginnings  of  a  Socialist  movement.  Under  the  new  Repub- 
lican regime  in  Portugal  one  Socialist  has  been  elected  to 
parliament.  In  Greece  ten  Socialists  were  elected  to  the 
National  Assembly  in  1910.  Bulgaria  and  Servia  both  have 
Socialist  parties  affiliated  with  the  International  Socialist 
Bureau,  and  in  the  new  Parliament  of  Turkey  there  are  six 
Socialists,  five  of  whom  are  Armenians,  the  other  being  a 
Bulgarian.  Persia  and  China  have  been  touched  by  the 
Socialist  movement,  and  in  Japan  a  relatively  strong  Social- 
ist movement  has  developed  under  the  leadership  of  Sen 
Katayama,  despite  bitter  persecution.  Katayama  reported 
to  the  International  Congress  in  1907  that  there  were  30,000 
conscious  Socialists  in  Japan.  The  governmental  repression 
was  so  severe  in  1910  that  the  Japanese  Socialist  Party  was 
unable  to  send  a  representative  to  the  Copenhagen  Congress. 
In  South  Africa  and  Australia  there  are  organized  Socialist 
movements,  but  much  of  the  strength  which  would  otherwise 
have  gone  to  them  has  been  absorbed  by  the  Labor  parties 
in  those  countries.  The  Australian  Labor  Party  now  has  a 
clear  majority  in  both  houses  of  parliament.  This  makes 
the  work  of  the  Australian  Socialists  very  difficult.  In  con- 
formity with  a  well-known  rule,  where  a  non-Socialist  labor 
party  is  strong  the  organized  Socialist  movement  is  extremely 
narrow  and  dogmatic.  In  Canada  the  Socialist  movement 
is  still  relatively  weak,  except  in  British  Columbia,  where 
three  Socialists  were  elected  to  the  Provincial  Legislature  in 
1907.  Several  of  the  Spanish-American  countries  have  small 
Socialist  parties,  and  in  Chili  and  Argentina  the  Socialists 
have  gained  parliamentary  representation. 


THE   NATIONAL  SOCIALIST   MOVEMENTS        313 

SUMMARY 

1.  The  German  Social  Democracy  was  the  earliest  in  origin  and  is 
numerically  the  strongest  of  all  the  national  Socialist  parties.     Its 
program  is  Marxian,  and  it  has  always  worked  in  harmony  with  the 
trade  unions. 

2.  The  French  Socialist  Party  is  strong  and  its  leaders  are  brilliant, 
but  it  has  suffered  from  internal  dissensions,  and  from  anarchism  and 
semi-anarchism  both  within  and  without  the  party. 

3.  The  Austrian  Social  Democracy  has  the  largest  parliamentary 
representation  of  any  Socialist  Party.     It  has  won  its  fight  for  equal 
manhood  suffrage.     Its  greatest  obstacle  lies  in  the  national  dissen- 
sions within  the  Austrian  Empire. 

4.  The  Belgian  Labor  Party  is  relatively  one  of  the  strongest  of 
Socialist  groups.     The  distinctive  feature  of  the  Belgian  movement  is 
the  high  development  of  productive  and  distributive  cooperation. 

5.  The  Italian  Socialist  Party  is  characterized  by  middle-class  leader- 
ship.    The  movement  in  Italy  has  been  divided  into  three  groups; 
the  "Reformists,"  the  anti-parliamentarian  "Syndicalists,"  and  the 
Marxian  "Integralists." 

6.  The  British  Socialist  movement  is  represented  by  the  rather 
narrowly  Marxian,  Social  Democratic  Party,  and  by  the  Independent 
Labor  Party,  which  is  allied  for  political  campaign  purposes  with  the 
non-Socialist  Labor  Party. 

7.  The  American  Socialist  movement  is  represented  by  the  Socialist 
Labor  Party  and  the  Socialist  Party.     The  latter  party  from  its  organi- 
zation in  1900  has  grown  very  rapidly.     Its  program  is  Marxian. 

8.  Socialism  in  Russia  is  outlawed,  and  effective  political  action  is 
impossible.     The  Russian  Social  Democratic  Party  tries  to  prepare  the 
way  for  revolution  by  secret  organization,  while  the  Socialist  Revolu- 
tionary Party  prefers  terrorist  tactics. 

9.  In   proportion  to   population   Finland  has  the  strongest  of  all 
Socialist  parties.     The  Finnish  party  has  won  universal  suffrage  re- 
gardless of  sex,  and  it  leads  the  struggle  against  Russian  aggression. 

10.  Of  the  other  countries  Socialism  is  strongest  in  Norway,  Sweden, 
Denmark,  and  Holland,  and  Socialist  movements  of  varying  strength 
exist  in  nearly  every  country  of  the  world. 


QUESTIONS 

1.  Compare  the  Gotha  and  Erfurt  programs  of  the  German  Social 
Democracy. 

2.  Discuss  the  attitude  of  the  German  party  toward  the  trade  unions. 

3.  What  are  the  chief  differences  in  theory  and  tactics  between 
the  "  Impossibilists  "  and  the  "  Possibilists  "  in  France? 


314  ELEMENTS  OF  SOCIALISM 

4.  Compare  the  French  Socialist  Party  with  the  German  Social 
Democracy. 

5.  How  does  the  Italian  Socialist  movement  differ  from  the  move- 
ments in  the  northern  European  countries? 

6.  Explain  the  relations  between  the  Socialist  and  the  Labor  parties 
in  Great  Britain. 

7.  What  were  the  causes  of  the  split  in  the  American  Socialist  Labor 
Party  and  the  formation  of  the  Socialist  Party? 

8.  Characterize  briefly  the  following  Socialist  leaders:  Lassalle,  Bebel, 
Liebknecht,   Jaures,    Guesde,   Adler,    de   Paepe,    Morris,   Hyndman, 
Hardie. 

LITERATURE 

The  chief  sources  for  the  national  Socialist  parties  are  their  reports 
to  the  International  Socialist  Congresses.  In  addition  the  following 
works  will  be  found  useful: 

Bernstein,  E.,  Ferdinand  Lassalle. 

Dawson,  W.  H.,  German  Socialism  and  Ferdinand  Lassalle. 

Hillquit,  M.,  Socialism  in  Theory  and  Practice,  Appendix. 

Hillquit,  M.,  History  of  Socialism  in  the  United  States. 

Hughan,  Jessie  W.,  American  Socialism  of  the  Present  Day.  Chap. 
Ill  and  XV. 

Hunter,  R.,  Socialists  at  Work. 

Kirkup,  T.,  History  of  Socialism,  Chap.  IX. 

Spargo,  3.,  Karl  Marx,  His  Life  and  Work,  Chaps.  XI,  XII,  and  XIII. 

Villiers,  B.,  The  Socialist  Movement  in  England. 

Webb,  Sidney,  Socialism  in  Great  Britain. 


PAKT  V 
POLICY  AND  PROGRAM 


CHAPTER  XXIII 

SOCIALISM  AND   SOCIAL  REFORM 

Marx  and  Engels  on  social  reform:  Marx  and  Engels  in 
the  Communist  Manifesto  emphasized  the  importance  of 
social  and  political  reform  and  sketched  a  practical  program 
for  the  betterment  of  the  conditions  of  the  wage-workers. 
That  it  was  a  crude  and  hastily  sketched  program,  which  has 
long  since  become  antiquated  to  a  large  extent,  is  not  here 
and  now  a  matter  of  importance.  What  is  significant  is  the 
fact  that  from  the  beginning  Marx  and  Engels  regarded 
agitation  for  reforms  as  a  necessary  part  of  proletarian 
activity.  Eighteen  years  later,  in  the  practical  program 
which  Marx  drafted  for  the  International,  we  find  measures 
like  the  eight-hour  work  day  and  free,  popular  education 
given  conspicuous  place. 

Marx  and  Engels  understood  and  set  forth  with  remarkable 
clearness  and  strength  the  need  for  physical,  mental  and 
moral  efficiency  on  the  part  of  the  workers  as  prerequisites 
of  their  success.  They  understood  and  pointed  out  the 
unfitness  of  the  slum  -proletariat,  whose  conditions  of  life 
necessarily  fit  it  to  be  a  reactionary  force  rather  than  a 
progressive  and  revolutionary  force.  On  the  other  hand, 
they  proclaimed  the  increasing  misery  and  degradation  of 
the  proletariat  in  terms  which  compel  us  to  conclude  that 
they  did  not  believe  much  could  be  done  by  the  economic 
and  political  organization  of  the  proletariat  to  check  that 
misery  and  degradation.  There  is  a  terrible  fatalism  in  the 
manner  in  which  they  picture  the  degradation  and  pauper- 
ization of  the  workers  as  one  of  the  conditions  essential  to 
comprehensive  social  change: 

"The  modern  laborer  .  .  .  instead  of  rising  with  the 
progress  of  industry,  sinks  deeper  and  deeper  below  the  con- 
ditions of  existence  of  his  own  class.  He  becomes  a  pauper 
and  pauperism  develops  more  rapidly  than  population  and 

317 


318  ELEMENTS   OF  SOCIALISM 

wealth.  And  here  it  becomes  evident  that  the  bourgeoisie 
is  unfit  any  longer  to  be  the  ruling  class  in  society.  ...  It 
is  unfit  to  rule,  because  it  is  incompetent  to  assure  an  exis- 
tence to  its  slave  within  his  slavery,  because  it  cannot  help 
letting  him  sink  into  such  a  state  that  it  has  to  feed  him, 
instead  of  being  fed  by  him.  Society  can  no  longer  live 
under  this  bourgeoisie,  in  other  words,  its  existence  is  no 
longer  compatible  with  society." 

Thus  we  find  in  the  thought  of  Marx  and  Engels,  in  their 
mingled  hopes  and  fears,  something  of  the  contradiction  and 
conflict  which  mark  the  evolution  of  Socialist  political  policy. 
Practical  constructive  programs  are  not  for  men  who  believe 
that,  despite  everything  that  may  be  done,  things  must  go 
from  bad  to  worse;  that  the  capitalist  system  must  crush  the 
workers  down  and  deny  them  the  minimum  necessities  of 
life;  that  at  last  a  depth  must  be  reached  when  the  workers 
will  be  forced  by  the  instinct  of  self-preservation  to  revolt, 
and  so  end  the  rule  of  the  master  class.  On  the  other  hand, 
men  who  believe  these  things  cannot  at  the  same  time 
believe  also  in  the  triumph  of  the  working  class  in  any  con- 
flict except  that  of  brute  force,  and  then  only  as  a  result  of 
their  overwhelming  numbers.  Nor  can  they  recognize  the 
weakness  and  inefficiency  of  the  most  submerged  class,  the 
slum  proletariat,  and  maintain  their  hope  for  the  fu- 
ture unimpaired.  For  it  is  the  essence  of  their  belief 
that  the  proletariat  as  a  whole  must  be  reduced  to  that 
state. 

Revolutionism  versus  opportunism:  In  nearly  every  coun- 
try in  which  there  is  a  considerable  Socialist  movement  we 
find  two  distinct  and  conflicting  elements  within  the  move- 
ment. There  is  almost  invariably  an  extreme  Left  wing  and 
an  extreme  Right  wing,  to  which  the  terms  "Revolutionary," 
and  "Opportunist,"  or  some  equivalent  of  them,  are  applied. 
Broadly  speaking,  the  Socialist  movement  everywhere  at- 
tracts two  distinct  types  of  mind,  the  mind  that  is  dis- 
trustful of  all  attempts  to  reform  existing  society  and  sees  no 
hope  in  anything  short  of  a  complete  transformation  of 
society,  and  the  mind  that,  while  equally  desiring  the  trans- 
formation of  society,  believes  that  it  must  be  effected  within 
the  existing  order  to  a  very  large  extent,  by  means  of 
the  progressive  improvement  of  conditions.  Under  strong 


SOCIALISM   AND   SOCIAL   REFORM  319 

leadership  those  who  hold  these  divergent  views  become 
crystallized  into  factions. 

While  the  movement  in  different  countries  varies  greatly, 
alike  in  characteristic  features  and  historical  development, 
it  may  be  said  that,  as  a  rule,  violent  opposition  to  social 
reforms  within  the  existing  order  is  associated  with  the 
immaturity  and  weakness  of  the  organized  Socialist  move- 
ment, and  that  as  the  movement  grows  stronger  it  becomes 
of  necessity  the  central  force  in  promoting  social  and  politi- 
cal reforms.  The  truth  of  this  generalization  is  admirably 
illustrated  in  the  history  of  the  German  Social  Democracy 
and  its  great  leaders. 

Evolution  of  parliamentary  tactics  in  Germany:  It  is  a  far 
cry  from  the  negative  iconoclasm  of  Liebknecht  and  his 
followers  in  the  early  years  of  the  movement  to  the  con- 
structive Socialist  statesmanship  of  later  years.  In  1867 
Liebknecht  urged  that  the  Socialist  members  should  enter 
parliament  only  to  read  a  declaration  of  protest,  and  then 
leave  the  house.  He  even  denied  that  election  to  parlia- 
ment offered  any  advantages  for  carrying  on  Socialist  pro- 
paganda. Against  the  view  of  Bebel  and  others  that  the 
Socialist  members  could  at  least  "speak  through  the  win- 
dows" of  parliament  to  the  workers  throughout  the  country, 
he  scornfully  urged  that  the  workers  could  be  better  reached 
outside.  By  1870  he  had  come  to  realize  the  strategic 
advantage  which  the  "windows  of  parliament"  gave  the 
Socialist  propagandist  and  agitator,  and  in  that  year  at  the 
Stuttgart  Congress  he  and  Bebel  wrote  a  resolution,  which 
was  adopted,  setting  forth  that,  while  the  party's  representa- 
tives in  parliament  must  as  far  as  possibfe  work  for  the 
interests  of  the  working  class,  on  the  whole  a  negative, 
critical  attitude  must  be  maintained. 

The  idea  of  using  their  political  power  directly  to  secure 
reforms  made  headway  very  slowly.  At  Coburg  in  1874  it 
was  declared  that  the  emphasis  must  be  placed  upon  propa- 
ganda, and  thirteen  years  later,  at  the  St.  Gall  Congress 
of  the  united  party,  a  similar  declaration  was  adopted,  except 
that  the  word  "agitation"  was  used  instead  of  "propaganda." 
At  the  Halle  Congress  in  1890  an  immense  gain  was  regis- 
tered, the  Socialist  representatives  in  the  Reichstag  being 
instructed  to  press  the  Socialist  demands  and  to  work  for 


320  ELEMENTS   OF   SOCIALISM 

palliative  reforms  possible  within  the  existing  state.  The 
Erfurt  Program,  adopted  in  1891,  contains  a  series  of  prac- 
tical proposals,  or  "immediate  demands,"  which  can  only 
be  interpreted  as  meaning  that  the  Social  Democracy  has 
definitely  chosen  to  rest  its  hope  upon  the  enlightened  and 
conscious  effort  of  the  proletariat,  rather  than  upon  those 
tendencies  in  economic  evolution  which  Marx  believed  to  be 
irresistibly  making  for  proletarian  degradation  and  economic 
cataclysm. 

The  value  of  social  reforms:  In  his  speech  at  the  Erfurt 
Congress  in  support  of  the  social  reforms  proposed  in  the 
program,  Liebknecht  frankly  declared  the  abandonment  of 
the  view  that  Socialism  flourishes  best  upon  the  misery  of 
the  masses.  Speaking  in  support  of  the  new  program,  he 
said :  "Formerly  people  used  often  to  say  that  the  only  means 
of  winning  the  masses  to  Socialism  was  to  leave  them  alone 
till  their  impoverishment  was  completed,  and  then  despair 
would  bring  them  to  us,  but  no  one  believes  in  that  nonsense 
any  longer."  Bebel  also  spoke  in  favor  of  the  new  tactics, 
but  seemed  to  base  his  support  upon  the  fact  that  the  reforms 
advocated  would  win  the  votes  of  a  large  number  of  workers, 
rather  than  upon  an  appreciation  of  the  value  of  the  reforms 
themselves.  Von  Vollmar,  one  of  the  ablest  of  the  leaders  of 
the  Opportunist  wing  of  the  party,  noted  this,  and  urged 
that  the  real  motive  of  the  party  in  advocating  the  social 
reforms  ought  to  be  the  value  of  the  reforms  as  substantial 
advances  towards  Socialism,  and  the  fact  that  they  would 
actually  improve  the  fighting  powers  of  the  proletariat. 
In  1892,  at  the  Berlin  Congress,  the  annual  report  of  the 
Socialist  members  of  the  Reichstag  to  the  party  practically 
affirmed  Von  Vollmar's  view.  It  incorporated  social  reform 
into  the  concept  of  social  revolution.  Social  reform,  it 
declared,  "serves  to  furnish  the  proletariat  with  a  little 
more  of  the  means  of  battle  which  they  require  in  order  to 
fulfil  their  historic  mission." 

Since  that  time  there  has  been  no  disposition  to  return  to 
the  old  tactics  of  mere  negative  criticism.  All  sections  of  the 
party  recognize  that  if  the  Social  Democracy  is  to  be  the 
party  of  working-class  emancipation  it  must  fight  for  the 
present  interests  of  the  workers,  and  do  all  that  is  possible 
to  improve  their  conditions.  At  the  Stuttgart  Congress 


SOCIALISM   AND   SOCIAL   REFORM  321 

of  1898,  Von  Vollmar  declared  that  "He  who  raises  the  posi- 
tion of  the  working  people,  economically,  politically,  intel- 
lectually, increases  their  strength  for  further  battles,  and 
places  a  sure  foot  on  the  way  leading  to  the  final  seizure  of 
the  powers  of  the  State."  At  the  Hanover  Congress  in  the 
following  year  a  similar  view  was  expressed  by  the  much 
more  radical  Clara  Zetkin:  "We  promote  these  reforms, 
not  to  win  the  masses,  but  to  raise  them.  With  slaves 
breaking  their  chains  you  may  make  a  momentary  riot, 
but  you  cannot  build  a  new  society.  Our  whole  reform  is 
directed  to  this  end,  to  raise  the  working  class  to  a  higher 
economic,  intellectual  and  moral  level;  and  I  subscribe 
with  both  hands  to  the  remark  of  Comrade  Adler  that  we 
must  work  with  our  whole  might  for  those  demands  of  the 
present,  just  as  if  we  were  working  for  the  attainment  of 
our  great  goal  itself." 

Social  Democracy  and  social  reform:  One  result  of  this 
evolution  of  tactics  and  policy  is  that  the  Social  Democracy 
is  universally  acknowledged  to  be  the  central  and  most  power- 
ful force  making  for  social  reform  in  Germany  to-day.  Even 
in  the  seventies,  before  the  adoption  of  a  constructive  par- 
liamentary policy  by  the  party,  the  actual  propaganda  dealt 
to  a  considerable  extent  with  such  practical  matters  as  the 
need  of  insurance  against  accident  and  old  age,  factory  legis- 
lation and  the  abolition  of  child  labor.  Lassalle  had  em- 
phasized the  socialization  of  the  State,  and  demanded  State 
aid  and  protection  for  the  workers.  His  influence  upon  the 
practical  propaganda  of  the  time  was  enormous.  Theorists 
might  talk  about  the  disappearance  of  the  State,  but  the 
workingman  who  addressed  his  fellow  workingmen  was  much 
more  likely  to  urge  that  the  State  ought  to  protect  its  useful 
citizens. 

When  in  1884  Bismarck  announced  his  program  of  social 
legislation,  he  admitted  in  the  Reichstag  that  he  had  taken 
those  features  of  the  Socialist  propaganda  which  he  believed 
to  be  practical,  and  that  he  hoped  thus  to  wean  the  masses 
from  the  Social  Democracy.  His  confession  was  as  blunt 
as  it  could  be:  "Give  the  workingman  the  right  to  work  as 
long  as  he  has  health.  Assure  him  care  when  he  is  sick, 
and  maintenance  when  he  is  old.  If  you  will  do  that  without 
shrinking  from  the  sacrifice,  and  do  not  cry  out  'State  Social- 


322  ELEMENTS  OF  SOCIALISM 

ism'  .  .  .  then  I  believe  that  the  gentlemen  of  the  Weyden 
(Social  Democratic)  program  will  sound  their  bird-call  in 
vain;  and  as  soon  as  the  workingmen  see  that  the  govern- 
ment is  earnestly  concerned  for  their  welfare,  the  thronging 
to  them  will  cease." 

The  Social  Democrats  were  not  in  the  least  disturbed  at 
the  prospect  of  having  their  arch  opponent  "steal  their 
thunder"  in  this  manner.  They  knew  perfectly  Well  that  no 
party  of  the  ruling  class  could  ever  concede  all  that  the 
material  interest  of  the  working  class  demands.  They  knew 
the  workers  too  well  to  believe  that  any  sop  of  concessions 
made  by  the  masters  would  satisfy  them,  and  believed  rather 
that  all  such  concessions  would  increase  the  appetite  of  the 
workers  and  cause  them  to  demand  more  and  more.  They 
did  not  doubt  their  ability  to  keep  the  Socialist  program 
far  hi  advance  of  any  ministerial  program.  Bebel  took 
advantage  of  Bismarck's  admissions  to  point  out  that  Bis- 
marck was  now  the  acknowledged  pupil  of  the  Social  Demo- 
crats, that  the  great  Chancellor  had  not  only  admitted  the 
existence  of  a  grave  problem  which  had  heretofore  been 
declared  not  to  exist,  but  had  accepted  the  remedial  policy 
advocated  by  the  Socialists.  The  result  was  certain  to  be 
an  increase  of  popular  confidence  in  the  wisdom  and  fore- 
sight of  the  Social  Democrats,  he  declared.  That  Bebel  was 
right  has  been  abundantly  proven  by  the  experience  of 
more  than  a  quarter  of  a  century.  In  almost  every  country 
in  which  there  is  a  strong  Socialist  movement  similar  attempts 
have  been  made  to  wean  the  masses  from  Socialism  by 
granting  some  of  the  reforms  in  the  Socialist  program,  but 
without  any  marked  success. 

The  new  tactics  and  "Marxism":  The  change  in  the  tac- 
tics and  policy  of  the  Social  Democracy  has  been  very  com- 
monly regarded  as  a  definite  departure  from  Marxism. 
This  is  true  if  by  Marxism  is  meant  simply  the  theory  of  the 
increasing  misery  of  the  proletariat.  But  that  generalization 
is  not  only  not  the  whole  of  Marxism,  it  is  not  essential  to  it. 
Indeed,  the  generalization  may  be  regarded  as  having  no 
legitimate  place  in  Marxian  theory.  It  is  an  interjection, 
inconsistent  with  the  rest  of  the  teachings  of  Marx  and  Engels. 
As  we  have  already  seen,  it  is  not  consistent  with  the  pro- 
gram outlined  in  the  Communist  Manifesto,  nor  with  the 


SOCIALISM   AND   SOCIAL   REFORM  323 

practical  program  of  the  International.  It  is  essentially 
a  false  note,  due  to  the  over-emphasis  of  the  great  impelling 
forces  of  economic  evolution  and  the  under-valuation  of  the 
human  factors.  If  by  Marxism  we  mean  the  fundamental 
thought  of  Marx  and  Engels,  the  thought  which  dominated 
and  guided  their  life-work,  and  the  practical  policies  they 
advocated,  the  change  in  tactics  may  be  regarded  as  a  return 
from  an  incidental  and  foreign  element  in  the  statement  of 
Marxism  to  the  fundamentals  of  Marxism.  The  utterances 
of  Von  Vollmar  and  Clara  Zetkin,  the  one  a  leader  of  the 
Opportunists  and  the  other  of  the  Revolutionists,  are  quite 
in  harmony  with  the  utterance  of  Marx  himself  upon  the 
passage  of  the  Ten  Hours'  Bill  in  England.1 

Social  reform  and  the  class  struggle:  The  policy  of  pro- 
moting social  reform  is  not  less  revolutionary  than  the  policy 
of  refusing  to  work  for  present  betterment,  but  more  so.  If 
by  social  revolution  we  mean  a  social  reality,  a  result  to  be 
attained  through  the  unified  efforts  of  the  working  class,  the 
Opportunist  who  unites  the  workers  upon  the  basis  of  their 
class  interest,  and  enables  them  to  improve  their  position 
and  equip  themselves  for  more  effective  resistance  and 
aggression  is  a  better  Revolutionist  than  he  who  merely 
denounces  present  conditions  and  holds  out  to  the  workers 
the  hope  that,  when  their  class  has  been  sufficiently  pauper- 
ized, brutalized  and  dehumanized  there  will  be  a  successful 
revolt.  To  the  modern  Socialist,  as  to  Marx,  social  revolu- 
tion is  not  so  much  a  method  as  a  result.  That  result  is  the 
transformation  of  capitalist  society  into  Socialist  society, 
and  will  be  quite  as  revolutionary  if  accomplished  by  a 
generation  of  peaceful  evolution  as  if  accomplished  in  a  week 
of  bloody  revolt. 

We  recur  again  to  the  central  motif  of  modern  Socialism, 
the  class  struggle.  The  social  reform  policy  of  the  German 
Social  Democracy  and  all  other  Socialist  parties  is  based 
upon  the  doctrine  of  the  class  struggle  and  is  shaped  by 
the  actual  class  conflict.  The  workers  must  resist  all  those 
forces  which  tend  to  lower  their  standard  of  living,  they  must 
wage  war  against  exploitation  and  for  better  conditions.  So 
much  is  involved  in  the  class  struggle  itself.  If  the  Socialist 
movement  is  to  be  an  expression  of  that  struggle,  it  must 

1  In  the  Inaugural  Address  of  the  International,  1864. 


324  ELEMENTS  OF  SOCIALISM 

necessarily  participate  in  the  efforts  which  the  workers  make 
to  better  their  conditions.  The  class  struggle  as  a  reality, 
then,  forces  the  Socialist  parties  of  the  world  to  be  aggressive 
champions  of  every  measure  for  the  present  betterment 
of  the  lot  of  the  workers. 

Illustrative  value  of  Germany's  experience:  The  impor- 
tance of  this  detailed  account  of  the  evolution  of  Socialist 
tactics  in  Germany  lies  in  the  fact  that  the  experience  of  the 
German  Social  Democracy  has  been  repeated  by  nearly 
every  national  Socialist  party.  The  change  from  the  tactics 
of  sterile  dogmatism  to  fruitful  practical  politics  is  both  a 
cause  and  an  effect  of  growth.  In  the  beginning  the  Socialist 
movement  is  almost  invariably  characterized  by  dogmatism, 
fanatical  bitterness  and  sectarian  intolerance.  Its  first 
political  victories  are  usually  won  in  spite  of  these  things, 
often  through  circumstances  which  lead  to  the  election  of 
Socialist  candidates  not  because  of  their  Socialism,  but  rather 
in  spite  of  it.  But  in  every  country  it  has  been  found  that 
with  the  election  of  even  a  single  representative  to  an 
important  legislative  or  executive  office  a  change  of  temper 
and  policy  begins  to  manifest  itself.  The  propaganda 
becomes  more  practical  and  less  theoretical.  Wild,  irrespon- 
sible talk  of  a  sudden  revolution  is  less  frequently  indulged  in, 
and  there  is  less  disposition  to  sneer  at  social  reforms.  The 
movement  devotes  more  and  more  of  its  energies  to  the 
task  of  bringing  about  the  betterment  of  the  lot  of  the 
workers. 

Brought  face  to  face  with  opportunities  to  improve  the 
conditions  of  the  working  class,  the  Socialist  Party  dares  not 
neglect  them.  Even  though  the  specific  reform  proposed 
may  be  small  and,  of  itself,  relatively  insignificant,  the 
instinctive  class  consciousness  of  the  Socialist  representatives 
prevents  them  from  opposing  or  ignoring  it  and  indulging 
themselves  in  denunciations  of  capitalism  or  prophecies  of 
a  cooperative  commonwealth.  In  other  words,  election  of 
even  a  few  of  its  representatives  to  office  brings  the  Socialist 
movement  to  a  point  at  which  it  must  face  reality  and  choose 
between  dogmatism  and  life;  between  loyalty  to  a  creed 
and  loyalty  to  the  working  class.  Little  groups  or  factions 
may  cling  to  the  dogmatism  and  remain  as  narrow  and 
embittered  sects,  but  the  movement  as  a  whole  chooses  the 


SOCIALISM  AND  SOCIAL   REFORM  325 

opposite  course.  This  is  illustrated  in  the  history  of  the 
Socialist  movement  in  England  and  the  United  States  as 
completely  as  anywhere  in  the  world. 

Far-reaching  results  of  the  policy:  The  results  of  this 
broadening  of  Socialist  policy  and  tactics  extend  far  beyond 
the  sphere  of  political  action.  It  effects  also  the  relation  of 
the  political  Socialist  movement  to  other  phases  of  the 
working  class  movement.  The  same  reasoning  which  keeps 
the  Socialists  in  the  early,  dogmatic  stages  of  the  movement 
from  recognizing  the  value  of  social  reforms  acquired  by 
legislation,  keeps  them  from  recognizing  the  value  of  im- 
provements brought  about  by  the  action  of  the  trade  unions 
or  the  cooperative  societies.  So  long  as  the  assumption 
upon  which  the  Socialist  policy  is  based  is  that  the  masses 
must  be  reduced  to  abject  pauperism  before  Socialism  can 
triumph,  every  attempt  to  prevent  that  pauperization  will 
be  looked  upon  as  retarding  the  social  revolution.  Not  until 
the  movement  frankly  abandons  that  position  and  accepts 
the  view  that  every  gain  of  the  working  class  better  fits  it 
for  its  great  mission  of  destroying  class  rule,  is  it  possible 
for  all  phases  of  the  organized  working  class  movement  to 
work  in  harmony. 

Socialism  and  cooperation:  Workingmen's  cooperative 
societies  long  antedated  the  rise  of  the  modern  Socialist 
movement  in  England.  When  the  latter  appeared  the 
cooperative  movement  was  already  more  than  fifty  years  old, 
for  in  1830  there  were  upwards  of  300  cooperative  societies 
in  the  United  Kingdom  with  a  membership  of  more  than 
20, 000. i  While  cooperation  had  not  solved  the  social  prob- 
lem as  the  founders  of  the  movement  imagined,  it  had 
greatly  benefited  that  portion  of  the  working  class  which  it 
had  succeeded  in  embracing  within  its  membership.  To  build 
up  and  maintain  such  a  movement  had  required  courage, 
self-reliance,  sobriety,  foresight,  organizing  capacity  and  a 
high  order  of  intelligence — all  qualities  essential  to  a  suc- 
cessful, militant  working  class  movement.  Had  the  Social- 
ists of  the  time  not  been  obsessed  by  the  notion  that  the 
cooperative  societies  by  improving  the  economic  conditions 
of  their  members  were  so  many  obstacles  to  the  coming  of 
Socialism  via  unlimited  misery,  the  story  of  British  Socialism 

1  Holyoake,  History  of  Cooperation,  1875,  Vol.  I,  pp.  152-153. 


326  ELEMENTS  OF  SOCIALISM 

might  have  been  very  different.  As  it  was  the  early  Social- 
ists frequently  went  out  of  their  way  to  disparage  cooperation 
as  a  conserving  force,  and  thus  set  up  a  barrier  between  the 
two  movements  which  has  not  yet  been  wholly  removed. 
Much  of  the  early  Socialist  propaganda  was  addressed  to 
the  slum  proletariat,  upon  the  assumption  that  the  poorest 
and  most  miserable  would  readily  respond  to  the  Socialist 
message.  Of  course,  this  proved  to  be  quite  far  from  the 
truth.  In  England,  as  elsewhere,  this  element  is  the  least 
responsive  to  the  Socialist  appeal.  Invariably,  Socialism 
makes  its  greatest  progress  among  the  best  paid  and  best 
organized  workers.  Not  until  the  rise  of  the  Independent 
Labor  Party  in  1893  was  any  considerable  progress  made 
among  the  cooperative  societies. 

Belgian  Socialism  affords  a  striking  contrast  to  British 
Socialism  in  this  respect.  The  Belgian  movement  has  never 
been  very  dogmatic.  From  the  first  it  has  included  every 
phase  of  distinctively  working  class  organization  and  aspira- 
tion. It  has  embraced  the  cooperatives,  the  trade  unions, 
the  friendly  societies  and  the  political  movement.  From 
England  the  Belgians  took  the  cooperative  associations  and 
the  trade  unions;  from  Germany  they  took  the  fundamental 
theories  of  Socialism  and  general  party  tactics;  from  France 
they  took  the  conception  of  Socialism  as  a  great  spiritual 
ideal  and  force,  "a  continuation  of  Christianity"  as  Vander- 
velde  once  described  it.  Thus  we  find  that  in  Belgium  the 
conflict  between  the  cooperatives  and  the  political  Socialist 
movement  has  never  developed  to  any  extent,  and  the 
Socialist  movement  includes  the  cooperative  movement. 

Socialism  and  trade  unionism:  The  relation  of  the 
political  Socialist  movement  to  the  trade  union  movement 
illustrates  the  same  principle.  Trade  unionism  antedates 
the  modern  Socialist  movement  by  a  great  many  years. 
As  far  back  as  1720  the  master  tailors  of  England  complained 
to  parliament  that  7,000  journeymen  had  "entered  into 
combination  to  raise  their  wages  and  leave  off  working  an 
hour  earlier  than  they  used  to  do,"  and  parliament  responded 
by  enacting  a  law  prohibiting  all  such  combinations.1  Two 
years  before  that,  in  1718,  a  royal  proclamation  against 
"lawless  clubs  and  societies"  among  workmen  had  been 
iWebb,  History  of  Trade  Unionism,  p.  27. 


SOCIALISM   AND  SOCIAL   REFORM  327 

issued.1  In  the  United  States,  even,  we  find  aggressive  local 
unions  of  printers  as  early  as  1786,  and  of  shoemakers  as 
early  as  1794.2  Long  before  the  Communist  Manifesto, 
therefore,  trade  unionism  was  already  well  established  in 
England,  and,  to  a  less  extent,  the  United  States.  It  had 
done  much  to  improve  the  conditions  of  the  workers  in  many 
trades,  as  Marx  himself  recognized.  The  movement  had 
grown  in  the  face  of  bitter  persecution  on  the  part  of  the 
master  class,  the  only  parallel  to  which  in  modern  times  is 
the  persecution  which  the  Socialist  movement  has  had  to 
endure. 

When  the  International  was  formed  trade  unionism  in 
England  and  the  United  States  was  a  real  power.  In  France 
there  were  many  unions  which  won  partial  legal  recognition  in 
1864,  the  year  in  which  the  International  was  founded.  In 
Italy  there  were  several  unions,  largely  dominated  by 
Mazzini.  Local  trade  unions  had  appeared  in  Germany, 
though  it  was  not  until  1865  that  the  first  national  German 
trade  union  was  formed  by  followers  of  Lassalle,  and  therefore 
closely  allied  with  the  Socialist  movement  from  the  very 
beginning. 

The  International  and  the  trade  unions:  Through  the 
International  Marx  brought  about  a  close  relation  between 
the  trade  unions  and  the  Socialist  movement  of  the  time. 
Here  as  always  Marx  subordinated  dogma  to  the  central  fact 
of  the  class  struggle.  The  unions  were  fighting  organizations 
of  workingmen,  therefore  they  must  be  welcomed  as  a  part  of 
the  working  class  movement  and  any  attempt  on  the  part 
of  the  Socialists  to  antagonize  the  unions  was  severely  con- 
demned. Marx  himself  believed  that  the  British  trade  unions 
were  destined  to  become  the  most  revolutionary  Socialist 
organizations  in  Europe.  All  through  the  life  of  the  Inter- 
national there  was  active  cooperation  between  the  trade 
unions  and  the  Socialists  in  England  and  America  as  well 
as  in  continental  Europe. 

Rise  of  the  new  Socialist  movement  in  England:  Almost 
a  decade  had  passed  after  the  death  of  the  International 
before  the  rise  of  the  new  Social  Democratic  movement  in 
England.  As  we  have  seen,  the  leading  spirits  of  the  new 

1  Webb,  op.  cit.,  p.  29. 

a  Documentary  History  of  American  Industrial  Society,  Vol.  V,  p.  20. 


328  ELEMENTS   OF   SOCIALISM 

movement  were  not  workingmen,  but  members  of  the  middle 
class.  They  were  dogmatists  of  an  extreme  type.  In  their 
attitude  toward  the  trade  unions  they  alternated  between 
flattery  and  bitter  insults.  Regarding  themselves  as  the 
preachers  of  the  only  true  gospel,  they  set  forth  to  convince 
the  trade  unions  that  their  ways  were  wrong,  to  show  them 
that  the  small  improvements  in  wages  and  hours  of  labor 
which  they  gained  from  time  to  time  were  in  reality  not  gains 
but  losses,  since  they  postponed  the  complete  emancipation 
of  the  working  class. 

When  they  cooperated  with  the  trade  unions,  as  a  rule 
it  was  not  because  they  had  a  common  faith  with  the  trade 
unions,  not  because  they  earnestly  desired  to  attain  the 
object  for  which  the  unions  were  striving,  but  because  they 
hoped  to  make  converts,  to  win  the  unions  to  the  Socialist 
point  of  view.  They  wanted  to  "capture  the  trade  unions" 
for  Socialism.  Above  all,  they  wanted  the  unions  to  become 
political  organizations,  auxiliaries  of  the  party.  They  urged 
the  unions  to  adopt  the  Socialist  program  and  even  to  make 
acceptance  of  Socialist  principles  and  the  support  of  Socialist 
candidates  conditions  of  membership.  Naturally,  the 
leaders  of  the  unions  resisted  these  attempts  and  resented  the 
general  depreciation  of  trade  unionism  by  the  Socialists. 
They  were  attempting  to  unite  all  the  workers  of  a  trade, 
regardless  of  their  religious  or  political  beliefs.  They  had 
already  more  than  enough  obstacles  to  overcome,  and  if 
they  had  followed  the  counsel  of  the  Socialists  they  would 
have  seriously  divided  their  forces.  It  was  inevitable, 
therefore,  that  a  conflict  should  develop  between  the  new 
movement  with  its  dogmas  and  the  old  movement  with  its 
practical  problems. 

The  issue  in  America:  The  story  of  the  relations  of  the 
two  movements  in  the  United  States  is  in  many  ways  very 
similar  to  that  of  the  English  conflict.  From  1878  to  1893 
the  friendly  relations  which  had  existed  between  the  Social- 
ists and  the  trade  unions  during  the  period  of  the  International 
were  gradually  weakened.  The  trade  union  movement  was 
the  older  organization.  It  was  indigenous,  and  when  the 
Socialist  Labor  Party  arose  was  about  entering  upon  a 
period  of  phenomenal  growth.  In  1878  the  first  convention 
of  the  Knights  of  Labor  was  held,  and  three  years  later  the 


SOCIALISM   AND   SOCIAL   REFORM  329 

Federation  of  Trade  and  Labor  Unions,  the  body  from  which 
the  American  Federation  of  Labor  developed,  was  formed. 
There  were  hundreds  of  thousands  of  American  workingmen 
organized  into  unions.  Frequently  these  unions  adopted 
platforms  or  other  declarations  of  principles  which  reflected 
the  influence  of  the  earlier  Socialist  agitation  and  came  very 
near  to  the  modern  Socialist  position. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  Socialist  Labor  Party  was  numer- 
ically weak  and  composed  mainly  of  foreigners,  many  of 
them  ignorant  of  the  language  of  the  country,  and  most  of 
them  unfamiliar  with  its  institutions  and  laws.  Under  the 
circumstances,  it  was  natural  that  the  Socialists  should 
regard  the  trade  unions  as  favorable  fields  for  their  propa- 
ganda. It  was  equally  natural  that  the  trade  union  leaders 
should  resent  their  propaganda  in  so  far  as  it  consisted  of 
criticisms  of  their  policies,  and  endeavors  to  commit  the 
unions  to  the  support  of  the  Socialist  Labor  Party.  As  in 
England,  the  Socialist  attitude  toward  the  unions  alternated 
between  flattery  and  bitter  insults.  An  element  developed 
within  the  party  which  insisted  that  the  unions  must  be 
opposed,  because  they  were  so  many  obstacles  in  the  path 
of  the  Socialist  movement.  Sometimes  this  element  con- 
trolled the  party  and  the  attacks  on  the  unions  were  very  bit- 
ter. At  other  times  the  party  swung  to  the  opposite  extreme 
of  flattery.  When  great  strikes  and  lockouts  took  place  the 
Socialists  were  always  ready  with  help,  moral  and  financial. 
But  even  this  friendly  service  was  not  always  disinterested. 
There  was  always  the  old  desire  to  "capture  the  unions," 
and  the  leaders  of  the  unions  recognized  the  fact.  Then,  too, 
the  Socialists  further  alienated  the  trade  unions  by  their 
frequent  association  with  the  Anarchists. 

With  the  formation  of  the  Socialist  Trade  and  Labor 
Alliance  in  opposition  to  the  American  Federation  of  Labor 
and  the  Knights  of  Labor,  and  the  resolution  of  the  national 
convention  of  the  Socialist  Labor  Party  in  1893  condemning 
the  existing  trade  unions  as  hopelessly  corrupt,  open  war 
was  declared  between  the  Socialists  and  the  trade  unions. 
If  the  capitalist  class  of  the  country  had  set  all  its  brightest 
retainers  to  invent  a  plan  of  checking  the  Socialist  movement, 
they  could  not  have  invented  a  better  one  than  the  Socialists 
themselves  had  devised.  One  of  the  first  acts  of  the  seces- 


330  ELEMENTS   OF  SOCIALISM 

i 

sionists  from  the  Socialist  Labor  Party  in  1899  was  the 
passage  of  a  resolution  repudiating  the  Socialist  Trade  and 
Labor  Alliance,  and  proclaiming  friendliness  toward  the 
trade  unions.  The  foundations  of  a  peace  policy  were  being 
laid. 

Policy  of  the  Socialist  Party:  But  even  after  the  rise  of 
the  new  Socialist  Party  with  its  wider  and  saner  policy, 
the  idea  long  persisted  that  the  political  Socialist  movement 
must  act  as  a  sort  of  schoolmaster  to  the  trade  union  move- 
ment. Not  for  a  long  time  was  there  any  sign  of  a  recog- 
nition of  the  trade  union  movement  as  simply  another 
branch  of  the  general  working  class  movement,  an  equal, 
not  a  subordinate.  Year  after  year  in  the  conventions  of  the 
American  Federation  of  Labor,  and  in  the  local  labor 
councils,  the  Socialists  struggled  for  the  adoption  of  resolu- 
tions indorsing  the  program  and  political  policies  of  the 
Socialist  Party.  Every  such  attempt  failed  and  succeeded 
only  in  reviving  old  and  bitter  quarrels  or  creating  new  ones. 

The  German  experience :  The  present  official  policy  of  the 
Socialist  party  of  the  United  States  recognized  the  right  of 
the  trade  unions  to  manage  their  own  affairs,  and  treats  the 
trade  union  movement  as  an  equal  partner.  This  policy 
accords  exactly  with  the  policy  of  the  German  Social  Democ- 
racy and  with  the  ideas  of  Marx.  It  may  be  said  to  be  the 
first  adoption  of  a  truly  Marxian  policy  so  far  as  the  party's 
relation  to  the  unions  is  concerned. 

Although  the  first  national  trade  union  in  Germany  was 
founded  by  Wilhelm  Fritzsche,  a  Lassallean  Socialist,  and 
was  from  the  first  dominated  by  Socialist  ideas,  other  unions 
sprang  up  at  about  the  same  time,  many  of  which,  like  the 
British  trade  unions  after  which  they  were  patterned,  de- 
clared for  strict  neutrality  in  politics.  The  overwhelming 
sentiment  of  the  Lassallean  Socialist  movement  was  against 
the  trade  union  movement.  It  was  a  cardinal  principle  of 
the  Lassallean  school  that  only  the  political  movement  could 
improve  the  condition  of  the  workers;  that  the  unions  were 
only  stumbling  blocks.  In  1872  this  sentiment  had  grown 
so  strong  that  a  resolution  was  adopted  at  the  annual  con- 
gress of  the  Lassallean  organization  warning  the  members 
against  advancing  the  unions  at  the  expense  of  the  political 
movement. 


SOCIALISM  AND  SOCIAL  REFORM  331 

The  Marxist  attitude:  In  that  same  year  the  Marxist 
organization  adopted  a  radically  different  resolution.  It 
urged  all  the  members  of  the  organization  to  help  the  trade 
unions  in  every  possible  manner,  and  condemned  the  resolu- 
tion adopted  by  the  Lassallean  faction.  This  resolution 
declared  that: 

"In  consideration  of  the  fact  that  the  capitalist  power 
equally  opposes  and  exploits  all  workingmen,  no  matter 
whether  they  are  conservatives,  liberals,  or  Social  Demo- 
crats, this  congress  declares  it  to  be  the  sacred  duty  of  the 
workingmen  to  lay  aside  all  party  strife,  in  order  to  create 
the  conditions  for  a  vigorous  and  successful  resistance  on  the 
neutral  ground  of  a  united  trades  union  organization,  to 
secure  their  threatened  existence  and  to  conquer  for  them- 
selves an  improvement  in  their  class  conditions." 

In  adopting  this  resolution  the  Eisenachers  were  following 
closely  the  advice  which  Marx  had  given  three  years  before. 
"The  trades  unions  should  never  be  affiliated  with  or  made 
dependent  upon  any  political  society.  ...  If  this  happens 
it  means  their  death-blow,"  Marx  had  declared  in  1869, 
and  then  went  on  to  argue  that  the  improvement  of  their 
conditions,  the  better  education  and  improved  physical 
efficiency,  which  the  workers  obtained  through  the  unions 
would  lead  them  to  Socialism.  Thus  we  find  Marx,  as  ever, 
basing  his  hope  upon  the  improvement  of  the  lot  of  the 
workers,  rather  than  upon  their  complete  subjugation.1 

Policy  of  the  united  party:  In  reality  the  Marxian  Social- 
ists took  in  1872  a  position  toward  trade  unionism  which 
they  logically  should  have  taken  toward  social  reform,  but 
did  not  until  twenty  years  had  passed  away.  After  the  union 
of  the  two  factions  in  1875  the  united  party  adopted  the 
Marxist  policy.  But  it  was  years  before  the  party  abandoned 
the  attitude  of  schoolmaster  toward  the  unions.  Bebel 
himself  has  confessed  that  at  first  the  Social  Democrats 
regarded  it  to  be  the  special  mission  of  the  trades  unions  to 
serve  as  recruiting  grounds  for  the  party  propaganda,  pre- 
paratory schools  for  Socialists.  The  unions  were  urged  to 
"keep  politics  and  religion  out  of  the  unions,"  but  at  the 
same  time  they  were  asked  to  join  the  Social  Democratic 
Party,  to  endorse  its  candidates  and  support  it  financially. 

1  Gf .  Karl  Marx,  His  Life  and  Works,  by  John  Spargo,  p.  248. 


332  ELEMENTS  OF  SOCIALISM 

In  recent  years,  however,  the  ideas  of  Marx  have  completely 
prevailed  in  the  policy  of  the  party  toward  the  unions.  It 
is  now  fully  understood  that  to  attempt  to  have  the  unions 
endorse  or  join  any  party,  Socialist  or  other,  would  create 
weakening  dissensions.  The  unions  are  urged  to  avoid 
party  politics,  and  to  confine  their  political  activities  to 
furthering  those  specific  measures  intimately  effecting  their 
immediate  interests  upon  which  the  workers  instinctively 
unite,  regardless  of  their  political  beliefs.  The  party  now 
trusts  to  its  power  to  win  the  individual  union  member. 

The  evolution  of  Socialist  tactics,  then,  has  in  nearly 
every  country  effected  not  only  the  attitude  of  the  Socialist 
parties  toward  social  reforms  secured  by  legislation,  but 
their  attitude  toward  the  efforts  of  the  workers  to  better 
their  conditions  through  other  agencies,  notably  the  trade 
unions  and  the  cooperative  societies.  Nothing  could  well 
be  more  fallacious  than  to  regard  these  changes  separately, 
as  so  many  vote-catching  concessions,  dictated  by  political 
expediency.  The  fact  is  that  we  have  to  consider,  not  a 
number  of  independent  changes,  unrelated  to  each  other, 
but  a  comprehensive  evolution  of  Socialist  policy  away 
from  the  accidental  and  non-essential,  in  the  direction  of  a 
more  consistent  application  of  the  fundamental  theories  of 
Marx  to  the  actual  life-problem  of  the  working  class.  A 
careful  examination  of  the  programs  of  the  leading  Socialist 
parties  of  the  world  will  show  that  they  are  based  upon  the 
central  thought  of  Marx,  the  class  struggle. 

Socialists  and  social  reformers:  The  Socialist  Labor 
Party  has  a  platform  which  is  a  compound  of  Lassalleanism 
and  the  "natural  rights"  theory  of  the  eighteenth  century, 
and  contains  no  specific  reform  measures.  The  Socialist 
Party,  on  the  other  hand,  has  a  platform  which  contains 
a  large  number  of  proposals  aiming  at  the  progressive  im- 
provement of  our  economic,  social  and  political  institutions 
and  conditions.  A  considerable  part  of  the  energy  of  the 
party  is  devoted  to  the  promotion  of  these  reforms.  In 
these  respects  the  Socialist  Party  follows  the  example  of 
all  the  important  Socialist  parties  of  the  world.  However 
distasteful  the  term  may  be  to  some  Socialists,  therefore, 
the  Socialist  Party  is  a  party  of  social  reform  and  its  members 
are  social  reformers. 


SOCIALISM  AND  SOCIAL  REFORM  333 

It  frequently  happens  that  other  social  reformers,  who 
are  not  Socialists,  seek  the  cooperation  of  the  Socialists  for 
the  promotion  of  certain  reform  measures,  and  are  surprised 
and  disappointed  when  the  Socialists  decline  to  cooperate 
with  them,  and  either  regard  their  reforms  with  indifference 
or  vigorously  oppose  them.  In  such  circumstances,  the 
Socialists  are  often  denounced  as  being  narrow  and  intolerant, 
or  inconsistent  and  insincere.  It  is  very  easy  to  make  such 
charges,  and  it  is  perhaps  natural  that  they  should  be  made. 
The  slightest  knowledge  of  the  movement,  however,  is 
sufficient  to  discredit  the  charges.  It  is  inconceivable  that 
a  great  movement  which  is  maintained  by  an  incalculable 
amount  of  self-sacrifice  should  place  the  principles  and 
ideals  for  which  that  sacrifice  is  made  beneath  mere  party 
or  personal  consideration.  The  sincerity  of  the  Socialists 
and  the  intellectual  attainments  of  their  leading  exponents 
warrant  us  assuming  that  there  must  be  serious  and  vital 
reasons  for  their  exclusive  attitude. 

Reasons  for  such  refusal:  The  refusal  of  the  Socialists 
to  cooperate  with  non-Socialist  reformers  may  be  due  to 
(1)  the  fact  that  the  specific  reforms  they  are  asked  to 
support  are  not  in  harmony  with  Socialist  principles;  (2) 
the  fact  that,  while  consistent  with  the  Socialist  program, 
and  even  taken  from  it,  the  specific  reforms  are  not  of  them- 
selves sufficiently  important  to  justify  the  Socialists  in 
dropping  the  rest  of  their  program  for  the  time  being  in 
order  to  concentrate  upon  them;  (3)  the  fact  that  the 
Socialists  lack  faith  in  those  with  whom  they  are  asked  to 
cooperate. 

A  very  brief  consideration  of  these  reasons  will  enable  us 
to  understand  the  Socialist  point  of  view.  Of  the  reforms 
which  are  not  in  accordance  with  Socialist  principles  we  have 
excellent  illustrations  in  the  various  measures  proposed  for 
the  restriction  of  monopoly.  It  often  happens  that  the 
indictment  of  the  great  oppressive  monopolies  by  middle- 
class  reformers  is  very  similar  to  the  indictment  of  the  same 
monopolies  by  the  Socialists.  No  Socialist  agitator  ever 
more  bitterly  arraigned  the  Steel  Trust  for  its  treatment 
of  its  employees  than  some  of  pur  middle-class  reformers  have 
done.  But  when  the  Socialist  is  asked  to  work  for  anti- 
trust legislation  he  must  decline,  for  the  very  obvious  reason 


334  ELEMENTS   OP   SOCIALISM 

that  he  believes  monopoly  to  be  an  inevitable  and  necessary 
step  towards  Socialism. 

Of  those  reforms  which  are  consistent  with  the  Socialist 
program  and  included  in  it,  but  are  advocated  also  by  non- 
Socialists,  woman's  suffrage  is  a  good  illustration.  Equal 
suffrage  is  a  fundamental  principle  of  Socialism.  When 
limited  suffrage  for  women  is  proposed,  giving  the  vote  to 
women  who  possess  certain  property  qualifications,  the 
Socialists  oppose  the  measure,  even  where  it  is  favored  by 
the  organized  woman's  suffrage  movement.  Such  a  measure 
is  not  in  harmony  with  Socialist  principles.  When,  as  in  the 
United  States,  the  demand  is  for  the  extension  of  the  suffrage 
to  all  women,  the  Socialists  give  the  movement  their  hearty 
support.  They  hold  demonstrations  in  favor  of  it,  appear 
at  legislative  hearings  on  behalf  of  it,  circulate  petitions, 
and  otherwise  further  the  movement.  Not  only  does  the 
Socialist  Party  do  these  things  in  connection  with  its  own 
propaganda,  but  it  gladly  and  earnestly  cooperates  with  the 
woman's  suffrage  organizations  in  similar  activities.  But 
if  it  should  be  asked  to  drop  all  the  rest  of  its  program  for 
the  time  being,  and  to  confine  itself  solely  to  agitation  for 
woman's  suffrage,  it  might  very  properly  decline  to  do  so, 
upon  the  ground  that,  important  as  the  reform  is,  it  is  not 
important  enough  to  warrant  the  proposed  action.  This 
does  not  mean,  of  course,  that  the  Socialists  must  take  the 
position  indicated  under  any  and  all  circumstances.  In 
various  countries  the  Socialists  have  at  different  times 
concentrated  all  their  energies  upon  specific  issues,  especially 
the  extension  of  the  franchise,  notably  in  Austria,  Belgium 
and  Sweden.  Circumstances  might  arise  which  would  justify 
the  Socialists  in  concentrating  all  their  energies  upon  the 
extension  of  the  suffrage  to  women  or  any  other  measure. 
The  point  to  be  observed  is  that  so  long  as  they  do  not 
regard  the  particular  reform  as  being  important  enough  to 
warrant  the  adoption  of  such  a  policy,  the  Socialists  are 
justified  in  refusing  to  do  so. 

Concerning  the  third  reason  for  refusing  to  cooperate 
with  non-Socialist  reformers,  lack  of  faith  in  those  with 
whom  they  are  asked  to  cooperate,  not  much  need  be  said. 
It  is  a  common  thing  for  capitalist  parties  to  put  into  their 
platforms  measures  of  reform,  excellent  in  themselves,  which 


SOCIALISM   AND   SOCIAL   REFORM  335 

are  intended  to  serve  as  bait  to  catch  the  unwary.  After  a 
great  strike  among  the  coal  miners  some  years  ago  the  Demo- 
cratic Party  in  the  State  of  New  York  adopted  as  one  of 
the  planks  in  its  platform  government  ownership  and  control 
of  the  coal  mines.  There  were  some  persons  who  regarded 
that  as  a  reason  why  the  Socialists  ought  not  to  oppose  the 
Democratic  Party,  but  support  it.  They  regarded  the  pro- 
posed reform  as  a  very  important  "step  in  the  direction  of 
Socialism."  Apart  altogether  from  the  inability  of  the 
Socialists  to  believe  in  the  good  faith  of  the  Democrats,  such 
a  policy  was  impossible.  It  would  have  meant  the  demoral- 
ization of  the  Socialist  Party.  It  would  have  meant,  also, 
that  the  Socialists  would  have  had  to  support  a  great  many 
things  in  which  they  did  not  believe  as  well  as  the  one  thing 
in  which  they  did  believe. 

Essentials  of  Socialist  reform:  The  Socialist  reform  pro- 
gram is  distinguished  from  all  other  reform  programs  by 
two  fundamental  characteristics.  The  first  of  these  is  the 
interrelation  of  all  the  reform  measures  to  one  another. 
They  are  not  separate  and  distinct  reforms,  each  one  offered 
as  a  panacea  for  a  special  social  ill.  They  are  all  inter- 
dependent. The  social  reform  program  of  Socialism  does 
not  consist  of  an  aggregation  of  measures,  separately  devised 
and  based  upon  different  and  conflicting  principles,  now 
collectiyistic,  now  individualistic.  Every  one  of  its  measures 
is  consistent  with  all  the  others,  and  all  are  based  upon 
one  central  idea.  The  second  characteristic  is  that  all  the 
measures  are  frankly  based  upon  the  interest  of  the  working 
class.  The  entire  program  has  for  its  aim  the  strengthening 
of  the  workers  as  a  class,  economically  and  politically,  in 
order  that  they  may  be  able  to  establish  the  Socialist  state. 


336  ELEMENTS   OF  SOCIALISM 

SUMMARY 

1.  Socialists  generally  have  from  the  first  included  immediate  re- 
forms in  their  programs,  but  there  has  always  been  a  minority  opposed 
to  reforms,  and  basing  their  hope  of  revolution  upon  the  increasing 
misery  of  the  proletariat. 

2.  As  the  movement  in  any  country  becomes  stronger  there  is  an 
increasing  tendency  to  advocate  reforms  and  an  increasing  recognition 
of  the  value  of  parliamentary  activity. 

3.  The  attitude  of  Socialist  parties  toward  trade  unionism  is  often 
characterized  at  first  by  a  desire  to  control,  and  failing  in  this,  by  open 
hostility.    In  later  stages  the  attitude  tends  to  be  that  of  recognition 
and  desire  for  cooperation  with  the  unions. 

4.  The  aim  of  all  Socialist  reform  measures  is  the  strengthening  of  the 
workers  as  a  class,  economically  and  politically. 

QUESTIONS 

1.  Discuss  the  attitude  of  Marx  and  Engels  toward  reforms. 

2.  What  is  the  distinction  between  Revolutionism  and  Opportunism? 

3.  What  is  the  attitude  of  the  extreme  Revolutionist  toward  parlia- 
mentary activity? 

4.  What  changes  have  taken  place  in  the  tactics  of  the  German 
Social  Democracy  since  the  early  period  of  its  history? 

5.  Explain  the  relation  of  Sociarreform  to  the  class  struggle. 

6.  How  does  the  attitude  of  the  British  Socialists  toward  distributive 
cooperation  differ  from  that  of  the  Belgians? 

7.  What  has  been  the  attitude  of  the  Social  Democrats  in  England 
toward  the  trade  unions? 

8.  What  is  the  difference  in  attitude  toward  trade  unions  between 
the  American  Socialist  and  Socialist  Labor  Parties? 

9.  Under  what  circumstances  will  Socialists  work  with  non-Socialist 
reformers? 

10.  Why  do  Socialists  sometimes  refuse  to  work  with  such  reformers? 

LITERATURE 

Commons,  J.  R.  and  others  (editors),  Documentary  History  of  Amer- 
ican Industrial  Society,  Vol.  V. 

Ely,  R.  T.,  The  Labor  Movement  in  America. 

Holyoake,  G.  J.,  History  of  Cooperation,  Vol.  I. 

Hughan,  Jessie  W.,  American  Socialism  of  the  Present  Day,  Chap. 
XI-XIV  inclusive. 

Kampff meyer,  Paul,  Changes  in  the  Theory  and  Tactics  of  the  (German) 
Social  Democracy. 

Marx,  K.,  and  Engels,  F.,  The  Communist  Manifesto. 

Spargo,  John,  Karl  Marx,  His  Life  and  Work,  Chap.  X. 

Webb,  Sidney  and  Beatrice,  History  of  Trade  Unionism,  Chap.  I  and  II. 


CHAPTER  XXIV 

THE  REFORM   PROGRAM   OF  SOCIALISM 


The  common  aim:  In  order  that  the  workers  "may  seize 
every  possible  advantage  that  may  strengthen  them  to  gain 
complete  control  of  the  powers  of  government,  and  thereby 
the  sooner  establish  the  cooperative  commonwealth," l  the 
Socialist  parties  of  all  lands  have  adopted  comprehensive 
programs  of  social  and  political  reforms.  Naturally  these 
programs  differ  materially  according  to  the  conditions 
existing  in  the  different  countries,  but  they  are  all  charac- 
terized by  a  general  identity  of  aim  and  purpose. 

Suffrage:  Modern  Socialism  is  inseparable  from  political 
democracy.  Foremost  among  the  demands  of  all  the  Social- 
ists of  the  world  are  those  for  the  abolition  of  all  restrictions 
upon  the  franchise  which  places  the  working  class  at  a  dis- 
advantage. Some  few  Socialists,  like  Belfort  Bax,  the 
English  Social  Democrat,  are  opposed  to  woman's  suffrage 
and  vehemently  deny  that  it  is  an  essential  principle  of 
Socialism,  but  the  contrary  view  is  held  by  the  vast  majority 
of  Socialists  everywhere.  In  Europe  the  battle  for  universal 
manhood  suffrage  has  taken  a  large  place  ha  the  Socialist 
propaganda,  and  the  fight  is  not  yet  wholly  won.  In  the 
United  States  the  Socialists  have  not  been  under  the  necessity 
of  establishing  manhood  suffrage,  since  that  reform  was 
accomplished  early  in  the  history  of  the  country.  Proposals 
for  the  extension  of  the  franchise  to  women  upon  equal 
terms  with  men,  the  abolition  of  poll  taxes,  through  which 
the  progressive  disfranchisement  of  a  large  part  of  the 
working  class  in  many  states  is  being  accomplished,  and 
other  similar  measures  are  urged  hi  the  national  and  state 
programs  of  American  Socialism. 

1  National  Platform,  Socialist  Party  of  America,   1904. 

337 


338  ELEMENTS  OF  SOCIALISM 

The  initiative,  referendum  and  recall:  Direct  legislation, 
through  the  initiative  and  referendum,  holds  an  important 
place  in  the  reform  program  of  nearly  every  Socialist  party 
in  the  world.  In  England  it  does  not  appear  in  the  program 
of  the  Independent  Labor  Party,  but  is  given  a  prominent 
place  in  the  program  of  the  Social  Democratic  Party.  On 
the  other  hand,  it  is  opposed  by  the  Fabian  Society,  which 
in  this  respect  holds  a  unique  position.  The  position  of  the 
Fabians  is  set  forth  in  a  resolution  presented  to  the  Inter- 
national Socialist  Congress  in  1896.  They  oppose  the  ini- 
tiative and  referendum  because  they  believe  that  the  masses 
can  never  be  made  sufficiently  familiar  with  the  "dry  details" 
of  legislative  and  administrative  reforms  to  vote  intelligently 
upon  them;  that  while  theoretically  democratic,  direct 
legislation  is  in  practice  reactionary,  and  urge  that  the  fact 
that  leading  anti-Socialists  in  England  have  advocated  the 
adoption  of  the  referendum  as  a  means  of  fighting  Socialism 
is  a  good  reason  why  Socialists  should  oppose  it.  Broadly 
speaking,  the  opposition  of  the  Fabians  to  direct  legislation 
may  be  said  to  arise  from  their  conception  of  Socialism  as 
a  better  organization  of  industry,  rather  than  as  the  emanci- 
pation of  the  working  class.  They  do  not  accept  the  doctrine 
of  the  class  struggle.  By  Socialists  generally  direct  legislation 
is  favored  because  it  will  help  the  working  class  to  establish 
its  rule.  It  is  not  intended  to  supplant  representative  par- 
liamentary government,  but  to  supplement  it.  The  right 
to  initiate  legislation,  to  consider  legislation  before  it  becomes 
law,  and  to  recall  elected  representatives  and  officials  are 
fundamental  principles  of  democracy. 

Proportional  representation  and  second  ballot:  In  every 
country  we  find  the  Socialists  fighting  for  proportional 
representation.  True  representative  parliamentary  govern- 
ment is  not  possible  where  the  parliament  does  not  epitomize 
the  opinion  of  the  population.  In  the  Congress  of  the  United 
States  we  have  approximately  one  representative  for  every 
35,000  voters.  But  with  over  600,000  votes  the  Socialists 
elected  only  one  representative  to  the  Sixty-second  Congress. 
The  Prohibition  Party  has  participated  in  every  national 
election  held  during  the  past  thirty  years,  polling  from  130,- 
000  to  270,000  votes,  but  has  never  had  a  single  Congres- 
sional representative.  The  injustice  of  this  is  manifest. 


THE   REFORM   PROGRAM   OF  SOCIALISM          339 

In  Finland,  Sweden  and  Belgium  the  Socialists  have  suc- 
ceeded in  bringing  about  proportional  representation.  It 
should  perhaps  be  said  that  no  particular  scheme  of  pro- 
portional representation  has  been  advocated  by  the  Socialist 
parties. 

Closely  allied  to  proportional  representation  is  the  second 
ballot,  which  is  advocated  hi  the  Socialist  program  of  nearly 
every  country  in  which  the  principle  is  not  already  estab- 
lished. Where  a  bare  plurality  of  votes  suffices  to  elect 
parliamentary  representatives  and  public  officials,  it  fre- 
quently happens  that  the  candidates  elected  represent  only 
a  minority  of  the  voters  in  their  respective  constituencies. 
Let  us  take  the  case  of  an  election  in  which  there  are  four 
candidates  for  the  legislature — a  Republican,  a  Democrat, 
a  Reform  candidate  and  a  Socialist.  Many  persons  avowedly 
sympathetic  to  Socialism,  who  would  vote  for  the  Socialist 
candidate  if  they  did  not  regard  his  candidature  as  hopeless, 
vote  for  that  one  of  the  other  candidates  whom  they  regard 
as  the  more  progressive  of  the  non-Socialist  candidates. 
In  this  manner  the  present  system  of  election  by  plurality 
vote  leads  many  voters  to  compromise  their  principles  and 
the  vote  reflects  that  compromise  rather  than  the  real  desire 
of  the  people.  In  Germany,  Belgium  and  several  other 
European  countries  this  difficulty  is  met  by  the  second  ballot. 
Let  us  suppose  that  in  our  election  the  vote  results  as 
follows: 

Republican 1800 

Democrat 1700 

Socialist 1100 

Reform..  800 


5400 

With  one-third  of  the  vote  the  Republican  is  elected, 
although  two-thirds  of  the  voters  opposed  him.  Under  the 
second  ballot  the  Socialist  and  Reform  candidates  would 
drop  out  and  there  would  be  a  re-ballot  with  the  Republican 
and  the  Democrat  as  candidates.  In  that  case  enough  of 
those  who  voted  for  the  Socialist  and  Reform  candidates 
might  vote  for  the  Democrat  to  give  him  an  absolute  majority. 
Undoubtedly  the  second  ballot  is  of  great  advantage  to  the 
Socialist  and  other  radical  parties  in  those  countries  where 


340  ELEMENTS   OF  SOCIALISM 

it  is  established.  Some  English  and  American  Socialists 
have  advocated  preferential  voting  instead  of  the  second 
ballot.  That  is,  that  each  voter  be  required  to  vote  upon 
every  candidate  for  the  office  to  which  an  election  is  held, 
numbering  each  in  the  order  of  his  choice,  as  first  choice, 
second  choice,  and  so  on. 

Abolition  of  the  Senate:  Among  the  political  reforms 
commonly  found  in  the  programs  of  European  Socialist 
parties  the  payment  from  the  public  treasury  of  the  cost  of 
holding  elections  and  of  salaries  to  parliamentary  repre- 
sentatives, are  reforms  which,  like  manhood  suffrage,  have 
long  since  been  accomplished  in  the  United  States.  The 
abolition  of  the  Senate,  however,  is  a  reform  which  American 
Socialists  demand  in  common  with  the  Socialists  of  several 
countries.  Thus  we  find  the  British  Social  Democratic 
Party,  the  Belgian  Labor  Party,  the  French  Socialist  Party 
and  several  other  Socialist  parties,  demanding  the  abolition 
of  the  Senate,  or,  in  England,  the  House  of  Lords.  In 
Denmark  and  Belgium  the  Socialists  have  obtained  repre- 
sentation in  the  Senate,  but  that  does  not  blind  them  to 
the  fact  that  the  Senate  is  a  body  designed  to  give  power  to 
the  master  class.  In  almost  every  country,  the  upper  house 
of  parliament  represents  the  privileged  classes.  The  Senate 
of  the  United  States  was  deliberately  designed  to  represent 
wealth  and  social  position.  It  was  intended  by  the  aristo- 
cratic constitutional  convention  to  "protect  the  minority 
of  the  opulent  against  the  majority."1  This  purpose  was 
attained  by  providing  for  indirect  election  of  Senators,  long 
terms  of  office  and  an  equal  number  of  Senators  from  each 
state,  regardless  of  population.  In  place  of  the  Senate  the 
Socialists  would  have  the  popular  optional  referendum. 


II 

The  administration  of  justice :  Reforms  in  the  administra- 
tion of  justice  and  in  the  judicial  system  as  a  whole  have  an 
important  place  in  the  programs  of  international  Socialism. 
There  are  few  Socialist  parties  which  do  not  lay  stress  upon 
the  necessity  of  making  the  administration  of  justice  free 

1  Madison,  Elliot's  Debates,  Vol.  I,  p.  450. 


THE   REFORM   PROGRAM   Ob'  SOCIALISM          341 

by  abolishing  all  court  fees  and  making  attorneys  public 
officials  paid  by  the  State.  However  impartial  the  law  itself 
may  be  at  its  best,  it  is  obvious  that  a  rich  man  to  whom 
court  fees  are  of  no  importance,  and  who  can  afford  to  engage 
the  most  eminent  counsel,  has  an  immense  advantage  over 
a  poorer  litigant.  In  practice,  therefore,  there  is  ample 
justification  for  the  plaint  that  "there  is  one  law  for  the  rich 
and  another  for  the  poor."  Wherever  the  Socialists  have 
had  the  power  to  do  so  they  have  opened  free  municipal 
bureaus  of  legal  advice  as  a  step  toward  the  establishment  of 
a  completely  free  system  of  judicial  administration. 

In  nearly  every  country,  also,  the  Socialists  demand  that 
all  judges  be  popularly  elected,  and,  like  all  other  officials, 
subject  to  recall.  The  class  bias,  of  appointive  judges  is 
notorious,  and  it  is  not  easy  to  see  why  the  interpretation 
of  the  laws  of  any  country  should  be  not  responsive  to  the 
people,  the  makers  of  the  law  in  any  ultimate  analysis  of 
democracy.  In  many  states  in  this  country  the  judges  are 
elected  by  the  people  and  the  Socialists  would  apply  the 
elective  principle  to  all  judicial  offices. 

The  judicial  veto :  This  reform  carries  with  it  the  abolition 
of  the  judicial  veto,  which  is  neither  more  nor  less  than  a 
power  to  nullify  the  legislative  acts  of  the  elected  parliament. 
In  the  United  States  this  question  assumes  greater  importance 
than  anywhere  else  in  the  world  and  has  led  to  the  adoption 
by  the  Socialist  Party  of  a  demand  for  the  abolition  of  the 
power  of  the  Supreme  Court  to  pass  upon  the  constitutionality 
of  laws.  The  power  to  abrogate  any  act  of  Congress  ought 
to  be  vested  only  in  the  people  themselves  through  popular 
referendum  and  their  elected  representatives  in  Congress. 
It  may  be  said  that  in  this  demand  the  Socialists  are  return- 
ing to  the  principles  upon  which  the  nation  itself  was  founded. 
The  Constitution  of  the  United  States  does  not  give  the 
Supreme  Court  the  power  to  nullify  legislation.  It  was 
assumed  by  the  court  under  the  rule  of  Chief  Justice  Marshall, 
and  has  become  an  accepted  fact  in  our  law.  Thus  the 
Supreme  Court  has  become  the  ultimate  legislative  authority, 
reading  into  legislation  important  principles  which  Congress 
itself  specifically  refuses  to  include  in  the  legislation  when 
it  is  being  formulated.  In  conformity  with  this  Socialist 
demand,  the  only  representative  of  the  party  in  the  Sixty- 


342  ELEMENTS  OF  SOCIALISM 

second  Congress  included  in  a  measure  providing  for  old 
age  pensions  a  clause  expressly  forbidding  the  Supreme  Court 
to  pass  upon  its  constitutionality.  Another  reform  of 
judicial  procedure  of  far  greater  significance  in  the  United 
States  than  elsewhere  is  the  restriction  of  the  power  to  issue 
injunctions  in  labor  disputes,  from  which  some  of  the  worst 
abuses  of  our  judicial  system  have  arisen. 

Ill 

The  protection  of  labor:  When  the  necessary  allowances 
have  been  made  for  the  differences  of  industrial  conditions 
and  political  and  social  development  of  the  countries  there 
is  a  remarkable  and  suggestive  similarity  in  the  practical 
proposals  of  the  Socialist  parties  for  the  protection  of  labor. 
The  class  struggle  involves  pretty  much  the  same  needs  in 
monarchical  Germany  as  in  republican  France;  in  the  United 
States  as  in  Belgium  or  Italy.  Thus  we  find  substantially 
the  same  demands  made  in  various  countries;  all  want  the 
legal  prohibition  of  child  labor,  regulation  of  the  hours  of 
labor,  adequate  factory  inspection,  freedom  of  trade  union 
combination,  relief  work  for  the  unemployed,  and  insurance 
against  accident,  sickness,  unemployment  and  old  age. 

American  Socialists  want  the  prohibition  of  the  employ- 
ment of  children  under  sixteen  years.  The  Belgian  Socialists 
would  forbid  all  employment  to  children  under  fourteen 
and  permit  only  half-time  employment  from  fourteen  to 
eighteen.  Socialists  realize  the  enormous  injury  which  child 
labor  inflicts  upon  the  working  class,  and  in  every  country 
they  are  to  be  found  in  the  vanguard  of  the  fight  against  it. 
They  are  not  blind  to  the  fact  that  the  labor  of  the  child 
is  often  caused  by  poverty  and  that  to  forbid  the  employ- 
ment of  the  child  may  lead  to  greater  poverty  and  suffering. 
They  contend,  however,  that  the  remedy  for  poverty  is  not 
child  labor.  It  would  be  far  better  for  the  State  to  assume 
the  cost  of  maintaining  children  than  to  permit  their  young 
lives  to  be  ruthlessly  exploited  for  profit.  Fix  minimum 
wage  rates,  provide  work  for  the  unemployed  or  insure  the 
workers  against  it,  pension  the  sick,  the  aged,  the  widow 
and  the  orphan,  but  do  not  destroy  the  life  of  the  child, 
say  the  Socialists  in  all  lands. 


THE   REFORM   PROGRAM  OF  SOCIALISM          343 

Most  Socialist  parties  demand  the  enactment  of  legisla- 
tion establishing  eight  hours  as  the  maximum  work-day, 
providing  for  a  rest  period  of  not  less  than  a  day  and  a  half, 
thirty-six  consecutive  hours,  in  each  week,  forbidding  the 
employment  of  women  and  girls  in  occupations  especially 
injurious  to  females,  and  confining  night  work  to  the  mini- 
mum absolutely  necessary.  American  Socialists  make  their 
demand  for  the  reduction  of  hours  of  labor  more  general, 
and  demand  "shortening  the  work-day  in  keeping  with  the 
increased  productiveness  of  machinery."  In  several  coun- 
tries the  Socialist  parties  demand  the  prohibition  of  the 
employment  of  women  for  a  given  period  before  and  after 
childbirth,  generally  six  weeks.  American  Socialists  have 
made  no  declaration  upon  this  important  matter,  but  it  is 
significant  that  the  attempt  to  pass  such  a  law  in  Massa- 
chusetts in  1910  was  the  work  of  Socialists. 

Agricultural  laborers:  It  is  not  easy  to  see  how  a  measure 
like  the  eight-hour  law  is  to  be  applied  to  agricultural  labor 
so  long  as  agriculture  retains  Hs  present  form.  The  Social- 
ists in  Belgium  frankly  face  this  difficulty  and  limit  the 
application  of  the  eight-hour  work-day,  and  other  similar 
reforms,  to  the  "industrial  workers."  The  French  Socialists, 
on  the  other  hand,  in  1902  specifically  applied  its  measures 
for  the  regulation  of  the  hours  of  labor  to  "labor  in  industry, 
commerce  and  agriculture."  Without  making  a  definite 
statement  upon  the  point,  American  Socialists  have  largely 
followed  the  example  of  the  Belgians,  and,  by  implication 
at  least,  regarded  agricultural  labor  as  outside  the  scope  of 
some  of  the  laws  proposed  for  the  regulation  of  the  hours 
of  labor.  Like  the  Belgians,  they  have  formulated  special 
programs  for  farmers,  including  such  reforms  as  the  estab- 
lishment of  grain  elevators  and  storage  warehouses  by  the 
State;  separation  of  the  Board  of  Agriculture  from  politics, 
making  it  an  elective  body,  the  farmers  themselves  to  be 
the  electors;  State  insurance  against  diseases  of  animals 
and  plants,  insect  pests,  hail,  flood,  storm  and  fire,  and  State 
assistance  to  cooperative  associations  of  farmers  for  the 
purchase  of  seed,  fertilizer,  implements  and  machinery  and 
for  working  the  land  and  marketing  produce.  This  is  a  new 
development  in  American  Socialist  policy  and  the  "Farmer's 
Program"  is  as  yet  crude  and  ill-developed. 


344  ELEMENTS   OF   SOCIALISM 

State  insurance:  In  almost  every  industrial  country 
except  the  United  States,  something  has  been  done  to  insure 
the  workers  against  poverty  as  a  result  of  sickness,  accident, 
unemployment  or  old  age.  In  Austria,  where  they  have 
compulsory  insurance  against  sickness  and  accident,  the 
Socialists  aim  to  reform  the  system  to  liberalize  it,  and  to 
extend  the  insurance  to  cover  unemployment  and  old  age. 
In  Germany,  where  they  have  insurance  against  sickness, 
accident  and  old  age,  the  Socialists  aim  to  include  insurance 
against  unemployment  in  the  scheme,  and  to  further  democ- 
ratize its  administration.  In  the  United  States  there  is  no 
legislation,  state  or  national,  providing  for  the  insurance  of 
the  workers  against  sickness  or  accident  or  loss  of  employ- 
ment, no  provision  for  old  age,  except  for  the  veterans  of 
the  wars. 

The  Socialist  Party  demands  that  the  enormous  risks  of 
modern  industry  be  borne  by  the  nation  instead  of  by  the 
individual  workers  and  their  families.  The  workers  them- 
selves are  quite  powerless  to  make  adequate  provision  against 
sickness,  accident  and  death,  to  say  nothing  of  unemploy- 
ment. By  immense  sacrifices,  through  trade  unions,  fra- 
ternal insurance  societies  and  private  insurance  companies 
the  workers  made  heroic  efforts  to  insure  their  families 
against  the  worst  results  of  prolonged  illness,  accident  and 
death.  This  can  at  best  be  done  very  inadequately,  and  many 
of  their  attempts  subject  them  to  further  exploitation  by  the 
insurance  companies,  whose  charges  are  notoriously  exorbi- 
tant. Even  if  these  disadvantages  did  not  exist,  the  Socialist 
view  is  that  the  risks  incidental  to  the  production  of  the 
national  wealth  would  be  socially  borne,  so  far  as  that  is 
possible. 

IV 

Public  health :  In  their  programs  and  their  practical  work, 
the  Socialists  of  all  countries  have  been  distinguished  from 
all  other  political  parties  by  the  consistency  and  intelligence 
with  which  they  have  recognized  the  social  importance  of 
caring  for  the  health  of  the  people.  It  has  been  said  that 
every  advance  in  the  Socialist  movement  in  Europe  has 
been  marked  by  a  lowering  of  the  death-rate.  The  fact 


THE   REFORM   PROGRAM   OF  SOCIALISM          345 

that  the  working  class  furnishes  most  of  the  victims  of 
preventable  disease  has  forced  the  Socialists  to  pay  special 
attention  to  the  subject.  Thus,  in  France,  Germany, 
Belgium  and  Italy,  among  other  countries,  the  Socialists 
have  done  much  to  prevent  excessive  infantile  mortality  by 
establishing  municipal  creches,  milk  depots,  and,  in  some 
cases,  by  pensioning  nursing  mothers  and  thus  enabling 
them  to  remain  at  home  with  their  babies.  They  have  cared 
for  the  health  of  school  children  by  establishing  open  air 
schools  in  the  country  or  at  the  sea-side  for  sickly  children; 
maintaining  free  dental  clinics;  providing  free  meals,  or 
meals  at  cost,  for  children  in  schools;  developing  the  system 
of  medical  inspection  in  schools  and  so  on.  In  several 
countries  the  Socialists  have,  in  the  municipalities  which 
they  control,  gone  far  toward  the  practical  realization  of 
the  principle  of  free  medical  attendance,  midwifery  and 
medicine,  contained  in  many  of  the  national  programs. 
Sanatoria  and  convalescent  homes  for  the  workers  have  been 
established  by  many  municipalities  under  Socialist  influence. 
The  establishment  of  free  medical  service,  making  physicians 
and  surgeons  public  servants,  is  generally  advocated  by 
Socialists  all  over  the  world,  though  it  is  not  specifically 
mentioned  in  the  program  of  the  Socialist  Party  of  America, 
which  confines  itself  to  the  general  demand  of  "further 
measures"  for  the  conservation  of  health,  and  the  one  specific 
demand  for  the  creation  of  a  national  department  of  public 
health  and  hygiene. 

The  temperance  problem:  Like  clisease,  drunkenness  and 
its  concomitant  evils  affect  most  seriously  the  working  class. 
Socialists  everywhere  recognize  the  ravages  of  intemperance 
and  in  some  countries  have  done  a  great  deal  to  stop  its 
progress.  The  Socialists  in  most  European  countries  have 
during  the  past  few  years  waged  war  upon  alcoholism  as  one 
of  the  things  tending  to  unfit  the  working  class  for  effective 
resistance  to  the  master  class  and  for  the  efficient  admin- 
istration of  public  affairs.  So  effective  has  the  stand  of  the 
Socialists  upon  this  question  been  that  it  is  commonly  said 
in  Europe  that  the  capitalist  parties  could  not  exist  but  for  the 
saloons.  In  many  of  the  leading  countries  of  Europe  there 
are  Socialist  temperance  societies.  At  the  seventh  Inter- 
national Anti-Alcoholic  Congress  in  Paris,  one  of  the  prin- 


346  ELEMENTS   OF  SOCIALISM 

cipal  addresses  was  made  by  Emile  Vandervelde,  the  Belgian 
Socialist  leader. 

But  there  is  no  common  legislative  policy  for  dealing  with 
this  problem  upon  which  all  the  Socialist  parties  unite. 
Perhaps  this  is  due  in  part  to  the  fact  that  it  is  a  com- 
paratively recent  development  of  Socialist  policy  to  deal 
with  it  at  all.  In  1903,  under  the  leadership  of  Victor  Adler, 
the  congress  of  the  Austrian  party  adopted  a  resolution 
declaring  that  the  drinking  habits  of  the  people  constitute 
a  serious  obstacle  to  the  Socialist  movement  and  pointing 
to  the  improvement  of  economic  conditions  and  the  educa- 
tion of  the  people  concerning  the  injurious  effects  of  alcohol- 
ism as  the  most  effective  means  of  combating  the  evil. 
It  urged  all  its  members  to  discourage  drinking,  to  forbid  the 
sale  of  intoxicants  in  Socialist  clubs,  and  to  assist  the  tem- 
perance societies.  In  1907  at  the  Essen  Congress,  the 
German  party  adopted  a  resolution  on  the  subject  of  the 
evils  of  alcoholism.  The  resolution  pointed  out  the  anti- 
social conditions  which  are  primarily  responsible  for  intem- 
perance among  the  workers,  and  urged  the  removal  of  these, 
rather  than  restrictive  legislation.  In  the  same  year  the 
Belgian  party  congress  passed  a  much  stronger  resolution 
on  the  subject  and  instituted  a  bureau  for  the  purpose  of 
carrying  on  an  educational  campaign  against  intemperance. 
Similar  resolutions  have  been  adopted  by  the  party  con- 
gresses in  several  other  countries,  including  England — by 
the  Independent  Labor  Party — and  the  United  States.  The 
American  resolution  declares  "any  excessive  use  of  liquor  by 
members  of  the  working  class  is  a  serious  obstacle  .  .  . 
since  it  impairs  the  vigor  of  the  fighters  in  the  political  and 
economic  struggle,  and  we  urge  the  members  of  the  working 
class  to  avoid  any  indulgence  that  might  hinder  the  progress 
of  the  movement  for  their  emancipation.  .  .  .  We  do  not 
believe  that  the  evils  of  alcoholism  can  be  cured  by  an 
extension  of  the  police  powers  of  the  capitalist  State.  Alco- 
holism is  a  disease  of  which  capitalism  is  the  chief  cause, 
and  the  remedy  lies  rather  in  doing  away  with  the  under- 
feeding, over-work  and  over-worry  which  result  from  the 
wage  system." 

In  practical  politics  the  Socialist  attitude  upon  the  sub- 
ject varies  greatly  in  different  countries.  In  Norway  and 


THE   REFORM   PROGRAM   OF   SOCIALISM          347 

Sweden  the  Socialists  support  the  Gothenburg  system,  or 
some  modification  of  it.  In  Finland  they  favor  absolute 
prohibition.  In  Belgium  they  demand  that  the  manufacture 
and  sale  of  alcoholic  drinks  be  made  a  State  monopoly. 
In  England  Socialists  generally  favor  the  municipalization 
of  the  entire  liquor  traffic.  American  Socialists  have  taken 
no  definite  stand.  All  Socialists  accept  the  principle  of  local 
option  and  probably  a  majority  of  American  Socialists 
believe  in  some  form  of  collective  ownership  and  manage- 
ment of  the  entire  liquor  traffic. 


Taxation:  In  all  countries  the  Socialist  parties  oppose 
practically  all  forms  of  indirect  taxation.  Thus  the  German 
Social  Democracy  demands  the  abolition  of  all  indirect 
taxes,  customs  and  duties  on  the  ground  that  they  "sacrifice 
the  interests  of  the  whole  community  to  the  interests  of  a 
favored  minority;"  and  the  Belgian  Labor  Party  demands 
"abolition  of  indirect  taxes,  especially  taxes  on  food  and 
customs  tariffs."  The  French  Socialist  Party,  on  the  other 
hand,  while  opposing  taxes  on  food  and  customs  duties,  and 
such  forms  of  direct  taxation  as  the  taxation  of  small  plots 
of  land  and  certain  small  businesses,  seems  to  favor  certain 
forms  of  indirect  taxation  by  empowering  the  State  "to  seek 
a  part  of  the  revenue  which  it  requires  from  certain  monopo- 
lies." Upon  the  positive  side,  all  the  Socialist  parties  advo- 
cate the  progressive  taxation  of  incomes  and  inheritances. 
In  the  program  of  the  American  Socialist  Party  the  sugges- 
tion is  made  that  the  taxation  of  inheritances  should  be 
graduated  in  accordance  with  the  nearness  of  kinship  of  the 
legatee  as  well  as  in  accordance  with  the  amount.  The  Bel- 
gian program  provides  that,  except  in  case  of  gifts  to  works 
of  public  utility,  gifts  of  property  between  the  living  should 
also  be  taxed  upon  the  same  basis  as  testamentary  gifts. 
The  object  of  this  provision  is  to  prevent  the  evasion  of  the 
taxes  upon  inheritances  by  the  simple  method  of  "giving" 
property  during  the  lifetime  of  the  owner  to  those  who 
would  otherwise  not  receive  it  until  after  his  death. 

The  taxation  of  land  valued  for  local  purposes  is  generally 


348  ELEMENTS   OF  SOCIALISM 

advocated  by  Socialist  parties.  This  measure  was  advocated 
in  the  Communist  Manifesto,  long  before  the  rise  of  the 
Henry  George  Single  Tax  school.  While  fundamentally 
differing  from  the  individualistic  philosophy  of  this  school, 
and  regarding  the  Single  Tax  as  wholly  inadequate  when  con- 
sidered as  a  solution  of  our  social  problem,  the  Socialists 
fully  believe  in  absorbing  by  means  of  taxation  the  full 
rental  value  of  land.  But  even  if  the  average  wage  werker 
could  get  a  factory  site  free  he  would  not  be  able  to  set 
up  in  business  upon  his  own  account  with  any  chance  of 
success.  He  could  not  afford  the  costly  equipment  without 
which  successful  competition  with  the  great  capitalists 
would  be  impossible.  To  the  Socialist,  then,  the  taxation 
of  land  values  is  only  an  item  in  a  comprehensive  program, 
and  not  a  solution  of  the  social  problem. 

Collective  ownership :  The  collective  ownership  and  man- 
agement of  railroads,  telegraphs,  telephones,  steamship  lines 
and  all  other  means  of  social  transportation;  of  land  that  is 
used  for  the  purpose  of  exploiting  labor;  of  mines,  quarries, 
oil  wells,  forests  and  water  power,  and  of  industries  which 
can  be  so  owned  and  managed  with  advantage  to  the  com- 
munity are  demands  which  are  found  in  every  Socialist 
program  in  the  world.  In  some  instances  one  item  or  another 
in  the  foregoing  list  may  be  omitted,  as  in  England,  where 
the  telegraph  service  has  long  been  nationalized,  or  Belgium, 
where  the  railways  have  always  been  owned  by  the  nation, 
but  otherwise  the  list  is  a  fair  composite  of  the  programs  of 
Socialism  in  all  the  countries.  The  reasons  for  collective 
ownership,  the  line  of  demarkation  between  social  and  private 
property  and  the  chief  objections  to  collective  ownership 
are  discussed  in  other  chapters.  The  question  of  method 
alone  concerns  us  here:  how  do  the  Socialists  propose 
society  shall  acquire  the  means  of  production  and  exchange 
which  are  to  be  collectively  owned  and  administered?  Do 
they  advocate  confiscation  or  purchase? 

Means  of  Socialization:  It  will  perhaps  help  us  to  arrive 
at  a  proper  answer  to  these  questions  if  we  made  a  sharp 
distinction  between  Socialism  in  the  propagandist  stage  and 
Socialism  in  the  constructive  stage.  So  long  as  they  are 
engaged  simply  in  urging  the  general  principle  of  collective 
ownership  of  the  means  of  production  and  exchange  and  its 


THE   REFORM   PROGRAM   OF  SOCIALISM          349 

advantages,  the  Socialists  are  justified  in  meeting  all  ques- 
tions concerning  the  methods  of  obtaining  possession  of 
capitalist  industry  with  the  answer:  "Let  us  first  decide 
whether  we  want  collective  ownership;  if  we  do  we  shall 
devise  the  best  method  of  bringing  it  about  that  we  can." 
When  that  stage  has  been  passed,  and  they  are  called  upon 
to  formulate  plans  for  the  realization  of  the  principle  of 
collective  ownership,  the  Socialists  have  to  consider  the 
circumstances  existing  in  each  particular  case.  They  are 
not  called  upon  to  socialize  all  the  means  of  production  and 
exchange  at  once,  but  a  single  branch  of  industry  in  a  par- 
ticular place,  or  a  single  public  service.  The  proposal  is  to 
municipalize  this  lighting  plant  or  that  telephone  service, 
or  to  nationalize  the  railways  or  a  particular  industry,  as 
the  case  may  be. 

Broadly  speaking,  all  the  methods  of  bringing  about 
collective  ownership  ultimately  rest  upon  competition,  con- 
fiscation or  compensation.  That  is  to  say,  either  society 
must  enter  into  competition  with  the  capitalists  and  com- 
pete them  out  of  existence  in  much  the  same  manner  as  the 
large  corporation  crushes  the  small  manufacturer  by  com- 
petition, or  it  must  take  what  it  needs  by  force,  without 
payment,  or  it  must  purchase  what  it  needs.  Socialists 
are  riot  committed  to  any  one  of  these  principles,  nor  are 
they  precluded  from  adopting  either  or  all  of  them. 

The  competitive  method :  Tired  of  the  extortion  and  poor 
service  of  a  public  service  corporation,  a  gas  company,  for 
example,  the  citizens  of  a  particular  municipality  decide 
that  they  want  a  municipally-owned  and  -operated  lighting 
plant.  The  Socialists,  elected  upon  this  issue,  proceed  to 
the  task  of  carrying  out  the  will  of  the  people.  Either  because 
the  price  asked  by  the  company  is  too  high,  or  because  they 
find  the  plant  to  be  antiquated  and  inadequate,  they  decide 
against  purchase.  To  confiscate  the  plant  entirely  is  out 
of  the  question,  first,  because  the  citizens  would  not  tolerate 
it,  and  second,  because  the  laws  of  the  State  or  the  nation 
forbid.  The  Socialist  administration  decides,  therefore,  to 
erect  a  new  plant,  or  perhaps  to  install  an  electric  lighting 
system  in  place  of  gas.  The  company  now  finds  that  the 
profitable  contracts  for  public  lighting  are  taken  from  it, 
and  that  the  publicly  owned  electric  service  is  so  generally 


350  ELEMENTS   OF  SOCIALISM 

used  by  the  citizens  that  the  manufacture  of  gas  is  no  longer 
profitable,  and  that  the  value  of  the  plant  has  been  destroyed 
by  competition.  That  is  one  method,  applicable  in  many 
instances,  but  quite  inapplicable  in  others.  While  it  might 
be  the  best  method  imaginable  in  the  case  of  a  shoe  factory, 
it  might  not  be  at  all  a  good  method  in  the  case  of  a  water- 
supply  system.  To  build  parallel  railway  lines,  for  example, 
would,  in  most  cases,  be  a  great  waste. 

Confiscation:  It  is  undoubtedly  true  that  individual  So- 
cialist speakers  and  writers  have  advocated  confiscation. 
It  would  be  strange  if  it  were  otherwise,  if  reckless,  visionary 
and  impracticable  theories  and  methods  were  not  advocated 
from  time  to  time.  But,  here  again,  we  must  judge  the  move- 
ment by  its  mass,  not  by  its  exceptions ;  by  its  sanest  rather 
than  by  its  most  foolish  advocates.  Marx  and  Engels 
personally  favored  purchase  rather  than  confiscation. 
Engels  wrote  in  1894:  "We  do  not  at  all  consider  the  indem- 
nification of  the  proprietors  as  an  impossibility,  whatever 
may  be  the  circumstances.  How  many  times  has  not  Karl 
Marx  expressed  to  me  the  opinion  that  if  we  could  buy  up 
the  whole  crowd  it  would  really  be  the  cheapest  way  of 
relieving  ourselves  of  them."1  There  is  not  a  single  Socialist 
writer  of  recognized  authority  in  the  international  movement 
who  does  not  agree  that  there  is  nothing  in  the  theory  of 
modern  Socialism  which  precludes  the  possibility  of  paying 
the  owners  of  property  for  whatever  is  taken  from  them. 
Strangely  enough,  the  English  Fabian  Society  seems  to  be 
the  only  important  Socialist  body  in  the  world  which  has 
declared  against  the  principle  of  compensation,  and  even  it 
provides  for  "such  relief  to  expropriated  individuals  as  may 
seem  fit  to  the  community."2 

That  Marx  was  right  in  regarding  purchase  as  a  cheaper 
method  than  forcible  confiscation  can  hardly  be  doubted 
by  anyone  who  has  considered  the  manner  in  which  chat- 
tel slavery  in  this  country  was  abolished.  Leaving  out  of 
account  the  loss  of  life,  the  sectional  bitterness  resulting 
from  the  Civil  War,  and  the  disastrous  check  to  the  economic 
development  of  the  South,  the  money  cost  of  the  abolition 
of  slavery,  including  war  expenses,  pensions  and  the  destruc- 

1  Quoted  by  Vandervelde,  Collectivism,  p.  155. 

*  Basis  of  the  Fabian  Society.    See  Ensor,  Modern  Socialism,  p.  359. 


THE   REFORM   PROGRAM   OF   SOCIALISM          351 

tion  of  property,  far  exceeded  the  money  value  of  the  slaves. 
Everywhere  in  actual  practice  we  find  the  Socialists  moving 
along  the  lines  of  least  resistance,  and  it  is  safe  to  say  that 
Jules  Guesde  was  right  when  he  asserted  in  the  French 
Chamber  of  Deputies  that  if  violent  measures  are  ever 
resorted  to,  the  Socialists  will  not  be  responsible,  that  if  the 
decision  is  left  to  the  Socialists  the  transformation  will  be 
a  peaceful  one  accompanied  with  a  minimum  of  hardship 
to  the  master  class. 

Liebknecht's  view :  Perhaps  the  view  most  generally  held 
is  that  expressed  by  Wilhelm  Liebknecht  in  the  following 
brave  and  generous  words: 

"Even  those  who  enjoy  privileges  and  monopolies  ought 
to  be  made  to  understand  that  we  do  not  propose  to  adopt 
any  sudden  or  violent  measures  against  those  whose  position 
is  now  sanctioned  by  law,  and  that  we  are  resolved,  in  the 
interests  of  a  peaceful  and  harmonious  evolution,  to  bring 
about  the  transition  from  legal  injustice  to  legal  justice 
with  the  greatest  possible  consideration  for  the  individuals 
who  are  now  privileged  monopolists. 

"We  recognize  that  it  would  be  unjust  to  hold  those  who 
have  built  up  a  privileged  situation  for  themselves  on  the 
basis  of  bad  legislation  personally  responsible  for  that  bad 
legislation,  and  to  punish  them  personally. 

"We  especially  state  that  in  our  own  opinion  it  is  the  duty 
of  the  State  to  give  an  indemnity  to  those  whose  interests  will  be 
injured  by  the  necessary  abolition  of  laws  contrary  to  the 
common  good,  in  so  far  as  this  indemnity  is  consistent  with 
the  interests  of  the  nation  as  a  whole."1 

Compensation:  Accepting  the  view  that  in  the  vast 
majority  of  cases,  the  transformation  of  capitalist  property 
to  social  property  will  be  peacefully  accomplished,  the  expro- 
priated owners  being  compensated,  we  are  at  once  confronted 
with  a  new  difficulty.  If  bonds  are  issued  for  the  purchase 
of  the  properties  as  they  are  socialized,  will  not  unearned 
incomes  continue  to  exist?  Will  not  all  the  heavy  stock- 
holders simply  become  rich  bondholders? 

To  these  questions  an  affirmative  answer  must  be  given. 
Temporarily,  at  least,  these  conditions  would  exist.  Kautsky 
and  some  other  Socialist  writers  in  Europe  and  America 

1Cf.  Jaures,  Studies  in  Socialism,  p.  89. 


352  ELEMENTS   OF   SOCIALISM 

have  frankly  faced  this  difficulty.  They  suggest  (1)  that 
the  bonds  might  be  non-interest  bearing;  (2)  that  over  and 
above  the  amount  expended  by  the  State  in  redeeming 
its  bonds,  there  would  be  a  surplus  to  be  employed  for  the 
extension  of  socialization  or  any  other  purpose  decided  upon 
by  the  people;  (3)  that  when  a  few  of  the  important  indus- 
tries have  been  taken  over  the  bondholders  will  find  it 
difficult  to  invest  their  surplus  incomes  profitably;  (4)  that 
by  means  of  a  graduated  income  tax  and  an  inheritance  tax 
all  such  unearned  incomes  could  be  eliminated  within  a 
reasonable  period,  without  inflicting  injury  upon  any  indi- 
vidual. Taxation  is  of  course  a  form  of  confiscation,  but  we 
have  long  been  accustomed  to  it,  and  it  makes  it  possible 
for  the  process  of  confiscation  to  be  stretched  over  such  a 
long  period  of  time  as  to  make  it  easy  and  almost  unnotice- 
able. 

Other  reforms:  We  have  briefly  sketched  the  main  out- 
lines of  the  reform  program  of  present-day  Socialism,  dealing 
more  particularly  with  those  which  are  distinctive  and  char- 
acteristic of  the  movement,  rather  than  with  those  reforms 
which  are  more  commonly  advocated  by  all  liberal-minded 
citizens.  Socialists  everywhere  stand  for  the  conservation 
of  natural  resources;  for  international  arbitration;  for  de- 
centralization and  a  large  measure  of  municipal  autonomy; 
for  the  complete  democratization  of  education,  making  all 
education  from  the  kindergarten  to  the  university  free; 
for  the  freedom  of  the  press,  of  assemblage  and  religious 
association;  and  all  other  reforms  essential  to  the  realiza- 
tion of  political  and  industrial  democracy. 


THE   REFORM   PROGRAM   OF   SOCIALISM          353 

SUMMARY 

1.  Socialists  desire  to  make  political  democracy  a  reality  by  establish- 
ing universal  suffrage,  direct  legislation  and  proportional  representa- 
tion, and  by  abolishing  the  upper  houses  of  parliaments. 

2.  They  demand  the  free  administration  of  justice  and  the  abolition 
of  the  powers  of  the  courts  which  protect  class  privilege. 

3.  They  demand  State  protection  for  the  working  class  by  abolish- 
ing child  labor,  restricting  the  working  period  and  establishing  State 
insurance 

4.  They  desire  the  extension  of  public  health  legislation,  and  are 
generally  interested  in  the  promotion  of  temperance. 

5.  They  wish  to  substitute  direct  for  indirect  taxation,  and  to  bring 
about  the  collective  ownership  and  operation  of  the  principal  means  of 
production  and  exchange.     They  generally  favor  some  form  of  compen- 
sation to  the  expropriated  owners  of  industry. 

QUESTIONS 

1.  Why  do  Socialists  generally  favor  the  initiative  and  referendum? 

2.  What  are  the  advantages  of  proportional  representation?     Of 
the  second  ballot? 

3.  Why  do  Socialists  wish  to  abolish  the  Senate? 

4.  How  does  the  present  judicial  system  uphold  class  rule? 

5.  What  is  the  Socialist  argument  for  State  insurance? 

6.  Compare  the  positions  of  the  various  Socialist  parties  on  the  sub- 
ject of  alcoholism. 

7.  Why  do  Socialists  oppose  indirect  taxation? 

8.  What  are  the  possible  methods  of  obtaining  possession  of  industry? 

9.  What  are  the  advantages  of  the  method  of  compensation? 

LITERATURE 

Ensor,  R.  C.  K,  Modern  Socialism,  Chaps.  XXII-XXVIII. 
Hillquit,  M.,  Socialism  in  Theory  and  Practice,  Part  II. 
Hunter,  R.,  Socialists  at  Work,  Chaps.  VI-VIII. 
Jaures,  Jean,  Studies  in  Socialism,  Chaps.  VII-X. 
Kautsky,  K.,  Das  Erfurter  Program  (tr.  as  The  Class  Struggle). 
Liebknecht,  W.,  Socialism,  What  it  is  and  What  it  Seeks  to  Accom- 
plish. 

Snowden,  Philip,  Socialism  and  the  Drink  Question. 
Spargo,  John,  Socialism  (Revised  Edition)  Chaps.  IX-X. 


CHAPTER  XXV 

SOME   OBJECTIONS   TO   SOCIALISM   CONSIDERED 

The  objections:  A  survey  of  the  most  important  anti- 
Socialist  literature  of  the  past  twenty-five  years  reveals 
the  existence  of  a  large  body  of  criticism  and  objection. 
We  may  conveniently  classify  this  body  of  criticism  and  objec- 
tion into  two  main  divisions,  the  first  consisting  of  philo- 
sophical and  technical  criticisms  of  the  theories  of  Social- 
ism, and  the  second  of  objections  and  criticisms  directed 
against  the  movement  and  program  of  Socialism.  The  former 
have  been  sufficiently  considered  in  the  text:  we  shall  not 
further  discuss  them,  therefore,  but  confine  ourselves  to  the 
practical  objections. 

The  most  important  of  these  objections  to  Socialism  are: 
(1)  that  it  aims  at  the  abolition  of  all  forms  of  private  prop- 
erty; (2)  that  it  is  a  vain  attempt  to  make  all  men  equal, 
which  is  impossible;  (3)  that  it  would  reduce  all  to  a  dead 
level;  (4)  that  it  would  unjustly  reward  equally  the  lazy 
and  the  industrious;  (5)  that  it  involves  spoliation  and 
confiscation;  (6)  that  it  would  make  the  individual  the  slave 
of  the  State;  (7)  that  it  aims  at  the  destruction  of  the 
monogamous  family  and  its  substitution  by  "Free  Love"; 
(8)  that  it  is  based  upon  degrading  selfishness  and  crass 
materialism;  (9)  that  it  is  too  altruistic,  too  noble  an  ideal 
for  imperfect  human  beings  to  attain;  (10)  that  it  is  an 
attempt  to  do  by  sudden  revolution  what  can  only  be  done 
by  evolution;  (11)  that  it  is  a  "cut  and  dried  scheme";  (12) 
that  it  is  a  negative  criticism  merely  and  has  no  plan;  (13) 
that  men  cannot  be  made  good  by  legislation;  (14)  that  it 
has  never  been  tried;  (15)  that  it  has  been  tried  and  failed; 
(16)  that  the  vast  increase  in  public  ownership  would  lead 
to  a  corresponding  increase  in  corruption  and  graft;  (17) 
that  it  is  identical  with  Anarchism;  (18)  that  it  would 
involve  an  immense  amount  of  bureaucratic  government; 

354 


SOME  OBJECTIONS  TO  SOCIALISM  CONSIDERED   355 

(19)  that  it  is  opposed  to  all  forms  of  religion;  (20)  that  it 
would  not  provide  an  effective  incentive  to  insure  further 
progress;  (21)  that  it  would  destroy  art;  (22)  that  it  is 
against  human  nature. 

Each  of  these  objections  is  commonly  found  in  anti-Social- 
ist literature.  It  will  be  observed  that  some  of  them  flatly 
contradict  others.  Some  of  them,  therefore,  must  be  invalid. 
Socialism  may  be  condemned  because  it  is  based  upon  a 
low  order  of  selfishness,  but  it  cannot  also  be  logically  con- 
demned because  it  is  based  upon  an  impossible  altruism. 
It  may  be  criticised  because  it  submits  no  plan  or  scheme 
for  the  future  organization  of  society,  but  it  cannot  be 
also  condemned  because  it  is  a  "cut  and  dried  plan."  Yet 
it  is  not  at  all  uncommon  for  these  contradictory  objections 
to  be  made  by  the  same  persons. 

Many  of  the  objections  already  dealt  with:  The  reader 
who  has  read  the  preceding  chapters  with  a  reasonable  amount 
of  care  and  attention  will  recognize  the  fact  that  a  majority 
of  the  objections  have  been  dealt  with,  either  directly  or 
by  implication.  In  some  instances,  as,  for  example,  the 
objection  that  Socialism  aims  at  the  abolition  of  the  mono- 
gamic  family,  we  have  dealt  with  the  matter  specifically; 
in  other  instances,  as,  for  example,  the  objection  that 
Socialism  aims  to  change  society  through  a  sudden  revolu- 
tion, the  subject  has  been  sufficiently  covered  by  the  dis- 
cussion of  the  fundamental  principle  of  Socialism  as  a  theory 
of  social  evolution.  With  one  or  two  exceptions,  the  entire 
list  of  objections  has  been  dealt  with  to  some  extent,  directly 
or  indirectly,  but  a  few  of  the  objections  deserve  a  more 
careful  consideration.  We  shall  confine  the  present  dis- 
cussion to  these. 

(1)  Graft  and  business:  The  idea  that  graft  is  more 
general  in  publicly  owned  and  managed  enterprises  than  in 
ordinary  commercial  business  is  based  upon  a  complete 
misconception.  Graft  in  public  business  is  more  readily 
detected  and  more  generally  exposed  than  graft  in  ordinary 
commercial  life.  There  are  more  voluntary  detectives. 
The  opponents  of  a  man  or  political  party  in  office  are 
usually  anxious  to  discover  evidence  of  corrupt  dealing  to 
be  used  against  the  man  or  party  in  political  campaigns. 
There  is  far  greater  publicity  of  graft  in  public  business  than 


356  ELEMENTS   OF  SOCIALISM 

of  graft  in  private  business,  and  there  is  danger  that  we 
come  to  regard  graft  as  practically  synonymous  with  public 
business  enterprise. 

It  is  probable  that  there  is  far  less  graft  in  public  business 
on  an  average  than  in  private  business,  dollar  for  dollar. 
In  other  words,  in  public  business  to  the  value  of  a  million 
dollars  there  will  generally  be  found  less  graft  and  pecula- 
tion than  in  private  business  of  an  equal  amount.  The  fact 
is  that  ordinary  business  life  is  notoriously  honeycombed 
with  graft.  The  foreman  in  a  factory  grafts  upon  the  wage- 
earners  under  him  and  takes  weekly  "gifts"  from  them. 
The  superintendent  of  the  factory  takes  bigger  gifts  from 
those  to  whom  he  gives  the  orders  for  machinery,  raw  mate- 
rials and  other  supplies  for  the  factory.  The  directors  of  the 
corporation  owning  the  factory  make  contracts  on  behalf 
of  the  company  from  which  they  reap  extraordinary  advan- 
tages, or  make  sinecures  for  their  relatives.  The  buyers 
for  our  great  mercantile  houses  receive  "presents"  and 
"courtesies"  and  "commissions"  to  which  the  word  graft 
may  be  fairly  applied.  The  same  may  be  said  of  the 
managers  of  the  advertising  departments  of  the  railroad 
companies,  department  stores,  and  other  large  advertisers. 
Newspaper  publishers  and  editors  are  bribed  by  large 
advertising  contracts.  In  a  word,  there  is  hardly  a  branch 
of  present-day  business  in  which  graft  is  not  prevalent. 

Let  us  admit  that  where  a  city  owns  its  street  railways 
there  will  be  a  lot  of  graft  in  the  form  of  petty  peculations, 
commissions  on  contracts  for  supplies,  padding  the  payrolls 
by  creating  useless  jobs  in  order  to  reward  political  services, 
and  so  on.  When  we  have  admitted  so  much,  it  remains 
to  be  said  that  all  these  things  take  place  where  the  street 
railways  are  owned  by  capitalist  corporations  to  an  even 
larger  extent.  Again  and  again  managers  of  public  service 
corporations  have  admitted  that  they  dared  not  refuse 
employment  to  men  sent  to  them  by  political  bosses. 

Source  of  graft  in  public  business:  Graft  in  public  busi- 
ness, apart  from  petty  stealing,  is  almost  invariably  in  the 
interest  of  some  private  business.  It  is  the  private  business 
which  flourishes  through  graft.  Take  the  United  States 
postal  service  as  an  example.  In  addition  to  paying  for 
the  transportation  of  mails  a  rate  far  in  excess  of  the  rate 


SOME  OBJECTIONS  TO  SOCIALISM  CONSIDERED   357 

charged  to  the  express  companies,  the  government  pays 
an  annual  rent  for  each  car  which  far  exceeds  the  cost  of  the 
construction  of  the  car,  notwithstanding  the  fact  that  the 
average  life  of  a  mail  car  is  more  than  ten  years,  and  the 
further  fact  that  no  such  rental  is  paid  by  the  express 
companies.  The  graft  in  the  postal  system  about  which 
so  much  has  been  written  is  probably  less  than  that  which 
might  be  found  in  any  industrial  corporations  doing  an  equal 
amount  of  business.  Moreover,  it  has  its  roots  in  private 
business.  The  remedy  lies,  not  in  turning  the  postal  system 
over  to  capitalistic  enterprise,  but  in  eliminating  the  private 
predatory  interests.  The  railroad  graft  would  be  wiped  out 
by  applying  the  principle  of  collective  ownership  to  the 
railroads.  Graft  might  then  find  its  most  important  centre 
in  the  business  of  supplying  the  railroads  with  coal,  steel 
rails,  engines,  and  other  supplies.  Again  the  remedy  would 
lie  in  the  further  extension  of  public  ownership  and  control 
to  cover  these  things. 

Political  corruption:  The  source  of  political  corruption 
is  always  private  business  and  never  public  business.  At 
the  national  capital  and  most  of  the  State  capitals  "lobbies" 
are  maintained  to  foster  certain  interests.  What  interests 
are  they?  Always  the  interests  of  capitalistic  business, 
never  of  public  business.  No  city  treasury  ever  has  to 
provide  for  a  legislative  corruption  fund,  as  our  railroad, 
express  and  insurance  companies  have  always  done.  When 
legislators  are  bribed  it  is  always  by  those  who  are  seeking 
to  make  profit  through  the  adoption  of  favorable  legisla- 
tion or  through  the  defeat  of  unfavorable  legislation.  Mr. 
Lincoln  Steffens  tells  of  $50,000  being  paid  for  the  vote  of 
a  municipal  councillor  in  St.  Louis  and  of  numerous  other 
examples  of  corruption,  all  of  which  were  due  to  the  efforts 
of  a  few  men  to  make  enormous  profits  at  the  expense  of  the 
rest  of  the  community.  Bribes  may  be  direct — that  is  the 
old,  crude  way — or  they  may  be  indirect  and  take  the  form 
of  large  fees  or  salaries  for  nominal  services,  or  of  friendly 
offers  to  "invest"  a  few  hundred  dollars  with  the  assurance 
of  many  thousands  of  dollars  profit,  and  so  on. 

Graft  and  corruption,  then,  arise  from  the  capitalist 
exploitation  of  public  necessities.  "Socialism  implies  (a) 
widespread  public  interest  and  criticism,  fatal  to  graft;  (6) 


358  ELEMENTS   OF  SOCIALISM 

the  overthrow  of  that  class  interest  which  produces  graft; 
(c)  the  end  of  that  private  business  which  flourishes  parasiti- 
cally  through  the  medium  of  graft  and  the  plunder  of  the 
public  treasuries."1 

(2)  Socialism  and  Anarchism:  The  Socialist  movement  is 
the  greatest  organized  opposing  force  to  Anarchism  in  the 
world.  It  is  not  an  accident  that  in  those  countries  where 
Socialism  is  strongest  Anarchism  is  weakest,  and  vice  versa. 
Both  Socialism  and  Anarchism  proceed  from  a  criticism  of 
the  existing  social  order,  and  there  is  much  similarity  in 
their  arraignment.  They  equally  condemn  the  capitalist 
system  on  account  of  the  poverty  and  vice,  the  misery  and 
degradation  which  result  from  it.  But  at  this  point  the 
Anarchist  and  the  Socialist  part  company,  and  assume  utterly 
irreconcilable  positions.  Socialism,  as  the  word  implies, 
is  based  upon  the  fundamental  idea  of  social  interest  and 
responsibility,  Anarchism  on  the  opposite  idea  of  individual 
interest  and  responsibility.  Socialism  regards  society  as 
supreme,  Anarchism  regards  the  individual  as  supreme. 
The  Anarchist  regards  society  as  merely  an  aggregation  of 
individuals,  the  Socialist  regards  society  as  something  more, 
just  as  a  house  is  something  more  than  an  aggregation  of 
bricks  and  mortar.  The  Anarchist  believes  that  society 
cannot  rightly  do  what  the  individual  cannot  rightly  do, 
and  that  as  no  individual  can  rightly  control  another  indi- 
vidual, society  cannot  rightly  control  the  actions  of  any 
individual.  The  Socialist  holds  that  this  is  not  the  doctrine 
of  liberty,  but  of  tyranny;  that  it  places  the  will  of  a  single 
individual  above  that  of  all  other  individuals. 

While  the  Anarchist  regards  law  as  being  essentially 
tyrannical,  the  Socialist  believes  that  the  widest  liberty  is 
often  secured  through  the  law.  Many  an  Anarchist  has 
enjoyed  the  privilege  of  free  speech,  for  example,  simply 
because  he  was  under  the  protection  of  the  law.  From  the 
point  of  view  of  the  Anarchist  who,  after  all,  only  carries 
the  principle  of  laissez  faire  to  its  logical  conclusion,  our 
educational  acts,  factory  acts,  public  health  laws,  and  so  on, 
are  all  tyrannical.  From  the  point  of  view  of  the  Socialist 
such  manifestations  of  the  collective  will  and  law  all  widen 

'Spargo,  The  Socialists,  Who  They  Are  and  What  They  Stand  For, 
p.  107. 


SOME  OBJECTIONS  TO  SOCIALISM  CONSIDERED   359 

the  bounds  of  freedom,  by  repressing  initiative  upon  low 
planes  and  forcing  its  development  upon  higher  planes. 
The  Anarchist  contends  that  all  laws  are  bad.  The  Socialist, 
on  the  other  hand,  holds  that  law  is,  per  se,  neither  good 
nor  bad.  Laws  which  give  the  few  power  over  the  many 
are  bad  because  they  are  anti-social.  But  laws  which  make 
for  social  well-being  are  good  and  desirable.  The  conflict 
between  the  two  systems  of  thought,  therefore,  is  fundamen- 
tal and  irreconcilable. 

(3)  Socialism  and  bureaucracy:  When  we  say  that  Social- 
ism regards  the  interest  of  society  as  supreme,  we  do  not 
mean  that  it  is  less  concerned  than  Anarchism  for  individual 
liberty.  The  Socialist  ideal  is  not  a  huge  bureaucracy, 
placing  all  human  relations  under  the  police  powers  of  the 
State.  On  the  contrary,  the  Socialist  is  just  as  solicitous 
for  the  freedom  of  the  individual  as  any  Anarchist.  Of 
course,  such  a  bureaucracy  as  many  people  fear  might  be 
developed,  but  it  would  not  be  a  necessary  result  of  the 
socialization  of  industry.  Most  modern  Socialists  believe 
that  one  of  the  results  of  Socialism  would  be  the  nullification 
of  a  vast  body  of  laws  and  that  the  amount  of  control  which 
the  government  of  the  Socialist  State  would  have  to  exercise 
over  the  individual  will  be  far  less  than  we  are  now  accus- 
tomed to. 

It  must  be  remembered  that  a  vast  amount  of  government 
is  involved  in  the  regulation  of  capitalistic  property  and 
enterprise  in  our  present  social  system.  Experience  has 
shown  that  for  the  restraint  of  capitalistic  enterprise  a 
tremendous  amount  of  legislative  and  administrative  effort 
is  required.  No  one  knows  just  how  many  of  our  laws  would 
become  obsolete  with  the  socialization  of  industry,  but  it 
can  hardly  be  doubted  that  the  body  of  such  laws  would  be 
very  large.  As  it  is  to-day  every  fresh  abuse  of  capitalism 
calls  forth  a  new  installment  of  legislation  restrictive  of 
personal  liberty,  and  frequently  humiliating  and  irritating 
to  a  degree  that  is  oppressive.  Armies  of  prying  officials 
are  engaged  in  the  attempt  to  enforce  these  laws.  Legislators 
are  busy  grinding  out  new  laws,  judges  keep  busy  interpreting 
them  and  trying  to  enforce  them.  Bureaucratic  government 
is  not  a  thing  of  the  future.  It  is  already  an  established  fact. 
We  are  to-day  living  under  bureaucratic  government.  Every 


360  ELEMENTS   OF   SOCIALISM 

fresh  attempt  to  "regulate"  monopolies  intensifies  the  bu- 
reaucratic character  of  our  government.  Modern  capital- 
ist industry  could  not  be  tolerated  under  any  other  form 
of  government.  The  Socialist  view  is  that  the  socialization 
of  industry  would  inevitably  do  away  with  a  large  part  of 
the  laws  and  the  machinery  for  their  enforcement  which 
make  a  bureaucracy  of  what  was  once  a  relatively  simple 
democratic  government. 

(4)  Socialism  and  religion:  One  of  the  objections  which 
is  most  frequently  urged  against  Socialism  is  its  alleged 
antagonism  to  religion.  It  is  obvious  that  the  collective 
ownership  of  the  means  of  production  and  exchange,  which 
is  the  practical  program  of  Socialism,  is  not  incompatible 
with  a  belief  in  God,  the  immortality  of  the  soul,  the  doc- 
trine of  the  atonement  or  the  doctrine  of  the  immaculate 
conception.  The  objection  must,  therefore,  be  based  upon 
some  other  ground  than  that  of  the  practical  program  of  the 
Socialist  movement. 

The  Socialists  themselves  declare  that  Socialism  is  not 
antagonistic  to  religion.  There  is  hardly  a  Socialist  party 
in  the  world  which  has  not  adopted  some  statement  to  the 
effect  that  it  does  not  in  any  manner  concern  itself  with 
questions  of  religious  belief  or  affiliation.  In  the  Socialist 
movement  of  the  United  States  there  are  orthodox  Jews 
and  Christians,  Catholics  and  Protestants,  Unitarians  and 
Trinitarians,  Methodists  and  Baptists,  Christian  Scientists 
and  Atheists,  Spiritualists  and  Agnostics.  Men  and  women 
prominent  in  religious  life  hold  positions  of  leadership  in 
the  party.  In  this  respect  the  Socialist  Party  does  not  differ 
from  any  other  political  party.  That  many  of  the  leaders 
of  the  Socialist  movement  have  been  free-thinkers  is  no 
more  to  be  regarded  as  a  proof  that  Socialism  and  religion 
are  incompatible  than  the  fact  that  prominent  leaders  in 
other  parties  have  been  free-thinkers. 

The  opposition  to  evolution:  If  we  trace  the  idea  that 
religion  and  Socialism  are  antagonistic  back  to  its  source 
we  shall  find  that  it  rests  upon  the  thought  that  the  Marxian 
theory  of  social  evolution  is  incompatible  with  a  belief  in  a 
Supreme  Being.  In  considering  this  fact  we  must  consider 
also  the  fact  that  the  same  idea  was  long  held  concerning 
the  theory  of  evolution  itself.  When  Darwin  and  Wallace 


SOME  OBJECTIONS  TO  SOCIALISM  CONSIDERED    361 

announced  their  great  theory  it  immediately  became  the 
storm  centre  of  the  intellectual  strife  of  the  modern 
world.  Science  and  dogma  entered  upon  a  long  and  bitter 
battle.  No  more  bitter  attacks  have  been  made  upon 
Socialism  in  the  name  of  religion  than  were  made  upon 
the  Darwinian  theory.  The  attacks  made  upon  Professor 
Huxley  and  other  leading  Darwinians  were  not  less  bitter 
and  unchristian  than  those  now  made  upon  Socialists. 
Gradually  the  new  science  made  its  way,  and  the  conflict 
has  now  to  a  large  extent  subsided.  A  man  is  no  longer 
refused  church  fellowship  and  communion  because  he 
declares  his  belief  in  evolution. 

The  conflict  which  was  waged  over  the  theory  of  evolu- 
tion ranged  practically  all  the  vigorous  intellects  of  the  time 
upon  one  side  or  the  other.  Both  sides  believed  that  the 
new  theory  would  prove  fatal  to  religion.  Both  sides  believed 
that  dogma  and  religion  were  one  and  the  same.  Now,  the 
modern  scientific  Socialist  movement  arose  at  this  time,  and, 
quite  naturally,  partook  of  the  temper  and  spirit  of  that 
science  with  which  it  felt  itself  to  be  so  closely  allied.  It 
was  inevitable,  therefore,  that  the  Socialist  leaders  should 
declare  themselves  to  be  against  that  religion  which  they, 
equally  with  their  religious  opponents,  believed  to  be  opposed 
to  true  science.  Thus,  the  association  of  atheism  and 
Socialism  may  be  fairly  described  as  an  outcome  of  the 
confluence  of  two  of  the  main  streams  of  nineteenth-century 
thought,  social  radicalism  and  natural  science,  against  which 
the  Christian  Church  pitted  itself.  As  we  recede  from  that 
period  of  discussion  and  conflict,  and  see  the  issues  in  a 
clearer  light  and  a  truer  perspective,  we  realize  that  the 
Socialists  in  declaring  that  there  is  nothing  in  the  Socialist 
philosophy  or  program  which  is  antagonistic  to  religious 
faith,  are  taking  the  only  logical  position.  To  a  man  who 
still  believes  that  the  world  was  made  in  six  days  of  twenty- 
four  hours,  and  that  the  Great  Creator  specially  devised  all  our 
social  institutions,  any  philosophy  of  social  progress  which 
admits  the  failure  of  any  institution  or  concedes  the  possibility 
of  improvement  through  human  agencies,  must  seem  to  be 
antagonistic  to  his  religion.  Happily,  however,  religion  is 
generally  free  from  that  narrow  bondage.  One  of  the  most 
remarkable  phenomena  attending  the  development  of  Social- 


362  ELEMENTS   OF   SOCIALISM 

ism  in  recent  years  is  the  breaking  down  of  the  old  mis- 
understanding which  kept  so  many  sincere  and  earnest 
men  and  women  of  religious  faith  and  affiliation  abof  from 
the  Socialist  movement. 

(5)  The  question  of  incentive:  The  fear  that  Socialism 
would  not  provide  an  effective  incentive  to  insure  the  steady 
progress  of  mankind  is  based  upon  two  fundamental  assump- 
tions, namely:  that  a  Socialist  society  will  reward  all  men 
equally,  irrespective  of  the  quality  of  their  service  to  society, 
and  that  men  will  not  strive  to  do  their  best  unless  they  are 
spurred  on  by  the  hope  of  some  special  reward.  We  have 
already  seen  that  the  first  of  these  assumptions  is  unwar- 
ranted; that  t  Socialism  does  not  of  necessity  imply  equal 
rewards  for  unequal  services.  There  is  nothing  in  the 
philosophy  of  Socialism  which  is  incompatible  with  the 
offering  of  any  kind  of  special  reward  for  special  social 
service. 

But  even  if  we  conceive  the  contrary  to  be  the  case,  that 
under  Socialism  every  human  being  must  receive  exactly 
the  same  income,  it  does  not  follow  that  men  will  have  no 
incentive  to  labor  with  zeal,  to  make  inventions,  to  create 
great  works  of  art,  to  serve  the  State  with  diligence.  It  is 
not  true  that  greed  is  the  only  effective  incentive  to  human 
action,  that  but  for  the  desire  for  gain  no  great  service  to 
society  would  ever  be  performed,  no  inventions  or  discoveries 
made,  no  masterpieces  of  art  created.  Such  a  view  of  the 
motive  forces  of  human  conduct  is  contrary  to  all  the  evi- 
dence we  have.  In  our  present  society  the  incentive  of  gain 
is  stronger  perhaps  than  at  any  time  in  history;  success  is 
measured  in  terms  of  money;  everything  is  priced.  The 
struggle  for  money  is  the  most  striking  fact  of  life.  Surely, 
under  these  conditions,  if  at  all,  the  incentive  of  greed  must 
prevail  over  all  others.  But  such  is  not  the  case;  there  are 
many  men  and  women  at  .work  whose  incentive  is  not 
material  gain. 

Other  incentives:  First  of  all,  there  is  the  incentive  of 
joy  in  work.  Under  capitalism,  this,  one  of  the  most  efficient 
incentives  of  human  action,  is  greatly  checked  and  weakened. 
The  laborer  is  very  generally  divorced  from  that  interest 
in  his  work  which  was  the  secret  of  the  old  craftsmanship. 
Nevertheless,  there  are  many  thousands  of  workers  whose 


SOME  OBJECTIONS  TO  SOCIALISM  CONSIDERED   363 

greatest  incentive  is  the  joy  of  labor,  to  whom  the  old  motto 
Laborare  est  orare  has  a  vital  meaning.  Among  teachers  of 
all  ranks  love  of  their  chosen  profession  forms  a  strong 
incentive  and  often  keeps  them  from  taking  up  more  profit- 
able work.  In  the  medical  profession,  again,  joy  in  successful 
work  is  perhaps  the  most  powerful  of  all  incentives.  The 
doctor  who  is  worthy  of  his  profession  will  fight  a  subtle 
and  dangerous  disease  in  a  laborer's  cottage  with  the  same 
energy,  courage  and  skill  as  if  he  were  in  a  mansion.  The 
combat  calls  forth  the  irresistible  human  passion  for  con- 
quest, for  supremacy.  Even  if  no  other  human  being  knew 
of  it,  the  satisfaction  of  having  won  where  many  others  fail 
would  alone  be  a  recompense.  When  there  is  a  genuine 
freedom  of  choice  of  occupation,  and  economic  conditions 
no  longer  force  men  into  wrong  places,  to  be  "square  pegs 
in  round  holes,"  and  when  the  laborer  is  no  longer  oppressed 
by  the  sense  that  he  is  being  exploited  in  order  that  others 
may  live  in  idle  luxury,  this  incentive  will  be  greatly  strength- 
ened. 

Closely  allied  to  the  satisfaction  and  joy  in  successful 
labor  is  the  instinct  and  passion  for  creation,  for  discovery 
and  for  self-expression  which  we  find  in  the  inventor,  the 
scientist  and  the  artist.  A  great  inventor  like  Edison  could 
not  refrain  from  inventing.  To  invent  things  is  a  passion 
which  dominates  life.  An  Edison  would  be  happy  with  a 
modest  income  and  freedom  to  experiment  and  invent,  but 
miserable  with  the  income  of  a  billionaire  if  prohibited  from 
inventing  and  experimenting.  Few  inventors  have  become 
rich  as  a  result  of  their  inventions,  most  of  them  have  died 
poor.  If  the  chance  of  gaining  great  wealth  constituted  the 
only  incentive  for  invention  there  would  be  few  inventions, 
for  there  are  very  few  lines  of  human  activity  which  offer 
less  assurance  of  financial  reward.  But  men  cannot  help 
inventing.  Just  as  the  chick  must  break  the  shell  and  set 
itself  free,  so  must  the  creative  impulse  in  man  find  expression. 
Lack  of  leisure,  educational  opportunities  and  experimental 
facilities — in  short,  the  conditions  of  poverty  and  overwork 
— kill  and  stultify  inventive  genius.  Wealth  cannot  make 
inventors,  but  poverty  can  kill  them.  What  is  true  of  the 
inventor  is  true  also  of  the  scientist,  the  philosopher,  the 
artist  and  the  poet.  By  making  educational  opportunities 


364  ELEMENTS   OF   SOCIALISM 

and  experimental  facilities  common  and  free  to  all,  by 
insuring  ample  leisure  to  each  individual,  Socialism  would 
liberate  an  amount  of  creative  genius  which  would  result  in 
progress  in  every  direction. 

For  material  reward  men  have  done  much,  but  they  have 
never  done  their  best.  All  the  greatest  achievements  of 
mankind  have  been  consummated  without  hope  of  material 
reward.  Has  the  greatest  statesmanship  of  the  world  been 
inspired  by  greed?  Has  it  not  rather  been  inspired  by  such 
motives  as  love  of  country,  devotion  to  an  ideal  and  the 
desire  for  approbation  and  honor?  Has  the  desire  for  money 
inspired  most  of  the  great  artists  and  poets?  Have  they  not 
rather  done  their  best  work  when  inspired  simply  by  love  of 
beauty,  love  of  doing  and  love  of  the  esteem  of  their  fellow 
men?  Have  the  Newtons,  the  Darwins  and  the  Spencers  of 
the  world's  history  been  inspired  by  greed?  Have  they  not 
rather  been  inspired  by  a  passion  for  knowledge  and  love 
of  truth?  When  we  ask  ourselves  these  questions  and  others 
like  them  we  are  driven  to  the  conclusion  that,  even  to-day, 
greed  is  not  the  most  powerful  of  human  motives. 

Incentive  under  Socialism:  There  is  no  material  reward 
which  capitalist  society  can  offer  an  inventor  which  Socialist 
society  could  not  offer  if  it  were  necessary  to  do  so.  Under 
Socialism,  however,  it  would  be  possible  for  society  to  offer 
rewards  infinitely  more  alluring  than  money.  In  all  ages 
symbols  of  honor  of  trifling  intrinsic  value  have  been  valued 
above  riches.  Thus  the  Greek  athlete  and  the  Greek  poet 
struggled  for  the  crown  of  olive  leaves  as  they  would  not 
have  struggled  for  riches.  Thus,  too,  the  British  soldier 
values  the  little  iron  cross  given  "for  valor"  as  a  priceless 
possession.  Such  symbols  are  valued  because  they  bring 
honor  and  esteem.  The  Socialist  State  could  well  create 
its  own  aristocracy  of  great  achievement. 

Collective  invention:  The  great  bed-rock  inventions  of 
humanity  were  invented  under  tribal  communism.  What 
inventions  have  been  of  greater  value  to  the  world  than  the 
boat,  the  sail,  the  rudder,  the  lever,  the  wheel?  But  no 
man  knows  by  whom  they  were  invented.  Every  invention 
is  in  reality  the  assembling  of  many  other  inventions,  a 
collective  product.  The  socialization  and  combination 
which  has  taken  place  in  industry  has  been  to  a  very  large 


SOME  OBJECTIONS  TO  SOCIALISM  CONSIDERED    365 

extent  applied  to  the  organization  of  invention  and  scientific 
discovery.  Our  great  manufacturing  plants,  such  as  the 
General  Electric  Works  at  Schenectady,  have  their  own 
departments  of  invention,  great  laboratories  in  which  salaried 
inventors  are  continuously  employed.  The  invention  of  new 
industrial  processes  has  become  a  business.  A  manufacturer 
of  cotton  goods,  for  example,  finds  that  certain  fabrics  do 
not  dye  well.  Formerly,  under  such  conditions,  he  would  either 
have  had  to  discard  the  fabric  or  experiment  with  various 
dyeing  substances  until  his  difficulty  was  overcome.  Now- 
adays he  refers  his  problem  to  a  firm  of  experimental  chem- 
ists. The  State,  also,  has  gone  into  the  business  of  organized 
experiment  and  invention.  Year  after  year  inventions  and 
discoveries  which  save  many  millions  of  dollars  to  the 
American  people  are  made  by  employees  of  the  U.  S.  Depart- 
ment of  Agriculture.  If  the  invention  is  such  as  to  warrant 
its  being  patented,  a  patent  is  taken  out  in  the  name  of  the 
inventor  and  then  dedicated  to  the  government.  The  in- 
ventor obtains  no  pecuniary  reward  other  than  promotion 
with  a  slight  increase  in  salary,  except  from  royalties  upon 
the  use  of  the  invention  in  foreign  countries.  The  invention 
of  a  safe  and  satisfactory  stamping  ink  for  marking  inspected 
carcasses  that  have  passed  the  Government  meat  inspectors 
is  said  to  be  worth  nearly  half  a  million  dollars  a  year  to  the 
Government,  but  Mr.  Dorsett,  the  inventor,  got  only  a 
promotion  with  an  advance  in  salary  amounting  to  about 
$1,000  a  year.  Dr.  Cushman's  invention  of  a  process  of 
manufacturing  steel  wire  which  will  not  rust  when  exposed 
to  the  weather  is  another  such  invention  of  almost  incal- 
culable value.  But  the  inventor,  being  already  in  receipt 
of  the  highest  salary  authorized  by  the  law  for  a  person 
working  in  his  department,  got  no  financial  reward  whatever. 
In  like  manner  the  Government  employees  of  the  Public 
Health  and  Marine  Hospital  Service  are  constantly  mak- 
ing important  discoveries  concerning  the  nature,  origin  and 
methods  of  combatting  disease.  Medical  research  is  being 
organized  collectively  in  this  manner  as  well  as  through 
great  organizations  like  the  Rockefeller  Institute.  Thus 
we  have  already  the  beginnings  of  a  system  of  socialized 
invention,  research  and  discovery,  which  the  Socialist  State 
may  well  develop. 


366  ELEMENTS   OF  SOCIALISM 

(6)  Socialism  and  art:  Of  all  the  objections  to  Socialism 
perhaps  the  least  worthy  of  serious  consideration  is  the 
objection  that  it  will  destroy  art.  It  rests  upon  the  assump- 
tion that  the  State  is  to  dictate  to  every  individual  what 
he  shall  do;  it  will  choose  certain  boys  and  girls  and  say: 
"These  are  to  be  the  sculptors  and  painters  and  composers 
of  to-morrow."  In  other  words,  the  source  of  the  objection 
is  a  deep-rooted  belief  that  Socialism  must  crush  out  all 
individuality,  all  forms  of  individual  initiative  and  expression. 
As  we  have  seen,  this  concept  is  entirely  unwarranted. 

It  was  not  without  abundant  warrant  that  the  great 
English  poet  and  artist,  William  Morris,  regarded  Socialism 
as  the  only  hope  for  the  future  development  of  art.  In  the 
first  place,  an  environment  more  unfavorable  to  the  pro- 
duction of  great  and  worthy  art  than  modern  capitalism 
creates  it  would  be  difficult  to  imagine.  Where  the  great  mass 
of  the  workers  must  labor  without  joy  or  interest  in  their 
work,  and  be  for  the  most  part  mere  servitors  of  machines, 
there  can  be  no  great  art,  except  in  individual  cases  which 
but  serve  to  reflect  the  lack  of  art  in  life  generally.  What 
is  most  truly  wonderful  and  inspiring  about  Greek  sculpture, 
for  example,  is  not  the  dazzling  heights  attained  by  a  few 
great  sculptors,  as,  for  example,  by  Phidias,  but  the  wonder- 
ful level  attained  by  the  ordinary  workmen,  as  reflected, 
for  instance,  in  the  wonderful  funeral  reliefs  in  the  National 
Museum  at  Athens.  Art  must  have  been  an  essential  part 
of  the  lives  of  those  workmen,  otherwise  the  work  of  their 
hands  would  not  have  been  so  wonderful.  In  like  manner, 
what  impresses  one  about  the  marvellous  medieval  cathedrals 
and  churches  is  the  evidence  upon  every  hand  that  in  those 
days  art  was  not  something  apart  from  life,  to  be  enjoyed 
by  a  few,  but  a  part  of  the  life  of  every  artisan. 

Surely,  the  Socialist  is  justified  in  claiming  that,  just  as 
art  cannot  flourish  under  commercialism,  it  must  flourish 
when  the  means  of  the  common  life  have  been  brought 
under  common  control,  when  none  are  overworked  to  main- 
tain others  in  idleness,  when  there  is  leisure  for  all  and 
freedom  from  want  and  the  fear  of  want.  It  is  worthy  of 
note  that  the  Golden  Age  of  Greek  art  was  that  period  when 
the  slave-based  communism  of  Athens  was  most  highly 
developed.  During  the  period  of  one  hundred  and  fifty-two 


SOME  OBJECTIONS  TO  SOCIALISM  CONSIDERED   367 

years,  490  B.C.  to  338  B.C.,  the  dramas  of  ^schylus, 
Sophocles  and  Euripides  and  the  sculptures  of  Phidias  and 
Praxiteles  were  produced,  and  the  Parthenon  itself  was 
designed  by  Ictinus  and  Callicrates.  These  developments 
were  possible  only  because  Athens  was  rich  and  her  citizens 
were  free  from  economic  care  and  had  leisure  to  gratify 
their  constantly  increasing  passion  for  beauty.  Not  until 
the  great  poverty  problem  has  been  solved,  and  the  oppor- 
tunities of  life  are  socialized  will  art  really  flourish  again. 
It  is  not  without  its  significance  that  on  the  one  hand  the 
great  modern  artists  are  nearly  all  in  sympathy  with  the 
Socialist  movement,  and  that,  on  the  other  hand,  they 
have  been  best  understood  by  the  people.  When  the  critics 
mocked  Millet,  the  radical  workingmen  understood;  when 
Meunier  portrayed  the  human  struggle,  it  was  the  radical 
section  of  the  working  class  that  understood.  No  one  who 
knows  the  life  of  the  working  people  and  their  aspirations 
can  doubt  that  the  conditions  under  which  they  live  and 
labor  are  responsible  for  the  repression  of  an  infinite  amount 
of  beauty  which  they  would  otherwise  express. 

(7)  As  to  human  nature:  Those  who  urge  against  Social- 
ism that  human  nature  must  be  changed  before  its  ideals 
can  be  realized  have  usually  a  low  idea  of  human  nature. 
They  seem,  moreover,  to  regard  human  nature  as  something 
very  definite,  certain  qualities  and  instincts  in  every  human 
being,  unchanging  from  age  to  age.  The  fallacy  is  very 
obvious.  In  a  Fifth  Avenue  club  men  are  polite  and  cour- 
teous. That  is  human  nature.  Outside  of  the  gates  of  a 
great  factory  in  times  of  industrial  depression,  men  will  fight 
over  jobs  as  so  many  hungry  dogs  would  fight  over  a  bone. 
Under  such  conditions,  men  seem  to  become  brutes,  but 
that,  too,  is  only  human  nature. 

So  far  as  we  can  speak  of  human  nature  at  all,  it  consists 
of  obedience  to  the  fundamental  instinct  of  self-preservation, 
and  adaptation  to  environment.  The  superstitious  fear  of 
the  African  savage  in  the  presence  of  a  great  calamity,  and 
the  scientific  work  of  the  enlightened  man  who  sets  about 
the  task  of  remedying  the  evil  wrought,  both  alike  illustrate 
human  nature  in  different  stages  of  development. 

It  is  to  that  fundamental  instinct  of  self-preservation  that 
Socialism  makes  its  appeal.  It  is  perhaps  the  deepest  and 


368  ELEMENTS   OF  SOCIALISM 

profoundest  instinct  in  humanity  to  which  the  Socialist 
appeals.  The  secret  of  all  human  progress  lies  in  the  fact 
that  men  are  forever  striving  to  eliminate  suffering  and 
want.  Goaded  by  a  desire  to  obtain  more  of  good  in  return 
for  less  labor  and  pain  and  sacrifice,  mankind  has  progressed 
thus  far.  It  is  to  that  desire  in  the  vast  majority  that  Social- 
ism makes  its  appeal.  So  far  from  admitting  that  Socialism 
depends  upon  change  in  human  nature,  the  Socialist  con- 
tends that  Socialism  must  come  unless  the  fundamental 
human  instincts  and  passions  which  we  call  human  nature 
are  changed. 


SOME  OBJECTIONS  TO  SOCIALISM  CONSIDERED    369 


SUMMARY 

1.  Private  business  is  honeycombed  with  graft,  and  the  principal 
sources  of  graft  in  public  business  come  from  its  relations  with  private 
business.     Socialists  contend  that  public  ownership  would  remove  the 
chief  source  of  graft. 

2.  Socialism  and  anarchism  are  fundamentally  opposed  to  each  other 
in  both  theory  and  tactics. 

3.  Socialists  do  not  wish  a  huge  bureaucracy.     On  the  contrary, 
they  wish  to  abolish  the  bureaucracy  of  capitalist  society. 

4.  Socialism  is  not  incompatible  with  religion  and  does  not  concern 
itself  in  any  way  with  religious  belief. 

5.  Socialism  would  not  do  away  with  any  socially  desirable  incentive, 
but  it  would  add  to  the  strength  of  the  highest  incentives  which  inspire 
mankind. 

6.  Socialism  appeals  to  the  most  fundamental  instincts  of  human 
nature,  and  Socialists  contend  that  Socialism  must  win  unless  human 
nature  is  changed. 

QUESTIONS 

1.  Give  the  Socialist  answers  to  objections  1-15  inclusive  by  refer- 
ence to  the  preceding  chapters. 

2.  In  what  forms  does  graft  exist  in  private  business? 

3.  Upon  what  grounds  do  Socialists  base  then1  belief  that  Socialism 
will  be  relatively  free  from  graft? 

4.  Contrast  the  principles  of  Anarchism  with  those  of  Socialism. 

5.  What  is  the  attitude  of  Socialists  towards  bureaucracy? 

6.  What  is  the  source  of  the  idea  that  religion  and  Socialism  are 
antagonistic? 

7.  What  are  the  chief  incentives  to  human  activity? 

8.  What  is  the  effect  of  commercialism  upon  art? 


LITERATURE 

Kelly,  E.,  Twentieth  Century  Socialism,  Book  I,  Chap.  III. 
Spargo,  J.,  The  Socialists,  Who  They  Are  and  What  They  Stand  For, 
Chap.  XVI. 

Vail,  C.  H.,  Principles  of  Scientific  Socialism,  Chap.  XIII. 
Vandervelde,  E.,  Collectivism,  Chap.  VI. 


INDEX 


Acts,  The,  188  n. 

Adler,  Victor,  280,  321,  346. 

Advertising,  21. 

Agents,  23. 

Agricultural  Experiment  Stations, 
215. 

Agricultural  Stage,  92. 

Agriculture,  Concentration  in,  11, 
27,  162,  163;  Department  of,  365; 
Labor  in,  343;  under  Socialism, 
238. 

Alcoholism,  345-347. 

Alexander  II  of  Russia,  303. 

Alexander  VI,  Pope,  244. 

Alsace-Lorraine,  203. 

AMERICA:  class  distinction  in,  101; 
industrial  concentration  in,  159- 
160.  See  also  UNITED  STATES. 

American  Federation  of  Labor,  295- 
296,  299-300,  329. 

American  Steel  and  Wire  Company, 
169,  170. 

American  Tobacco  Company,  175, 
178. 

American  Underwriter,  The,  32. 

Amsterdam,  International  Congress 
at,  8,  263,  278. 

Anabaptists,  241. 

ANARCHISM:  and  coercion,  218;  and 
Socialism,  358-359;  and  the  fam- 
ily, 243;  in  America,  295;  in  Hol- 
land, 308;  in  France,  275;  in 
Spain,  310. 

Ancient  Society  (Morgan),  71  n. 

Animal  Society,  66. 

Anseele,  Eduard,  282. 

Arbitration,  International,  352. 

Argentina,  312. 

Aristotle,  210. 

Arkwright,  Richard,  94. 


371 


Armenia,  312. 

Art,  219,  366-367. 

Athens,  187,  210,  367. 

Australia,  96,  182,  261,  312. 

AUSTRIA:  and  Poland,  310-311; 
Socialism  in,  264,  279-281 ;  Social- 
ist policies  in,  344,  346. 

Aveling,  Edward,  286. 

Aveling,  Eleanor  Marx,  286. 


Babeuf,  Francois-Noel,  191,  275. 

Babylonia,  73,  93. 

Bachelors'  Companies,  94. 

Bachofen,  249. 

Bacon,  Francis,  190. 

Baden,  271. 

Bakunin,  Michael,  257,  262,  283, 
302. 

Ballot,  The,  190,  339. 

Banking,  22. 

Barbarism,  71. 

Barcelona,  310. 

Barnave,  191. 

Basiliade,  The,  191. 

Bax,  E.  Belfort,  243,  286,  287,  337. 

Bazard,  Armand,  256. 

BEBEL,  AUGUST:  and  Bismarck, 
322;  Biographical,  273;  and  Ei- 
senach Party,  267;  on  Monar- 
chy, 8;  and  parliamentary  tactics, 
319-320;  on  the  State,  213;  on 
the  family,  243;  quoted,  213. 

Beesby,  E.  S.,  286. 

Belgian  Labor  Party,  History,  281; 
on  abolition  of  the  Senate,  340; 
on  agricultural  labor,  343;  on 
public  health,  345 ;  on  alcoholism, 
346;  on  taxation,  347,  348. 


372 


INDEX 


BELGIUM:  Socialism  in,  264,  281- 
282;  cooperation  in,  282,  326; 
proportional  representation  in, 
339;  second  ballot  in,  339;  public 
ownership  in,  348. 

Bell,  Richard,  289. 

Bellamy,  Edward,  198,  293. 

"Benevolent  Feudalism,"  66,  195. 

Bernstein,  Eduard,  88,  108,  158,  159, 
271. 

Berge,  Prof.,  307. 

Berger,  Victor  L.,  297,  298. 

Besant,  Mrs.  Annie,  286,  291. 

Bismarck,  203,266,268,269;  quot- 
ed, 321-322. 

Blacklist,  The,  113. 

Blanc,  Louis,  234,  255,  260,  275. 

Bland,  Hubert,  291. 

Blanqui,  Louis  Auguste,  275. 

Blanquists,  The,  277. 

Bobrikoff,  Gen.,  305. 

Bohemia,  280. 

Bohm-Bawerk,  137. 

Boissel,  191,  275. 

Bonanza  Farms,  27,  163. 

Booth,  Charles,  31. 

Boston,  31. 

Boycott,  The,  113. 

Briand,  Aristide,  279. 

Brisbane,  Albert,  292. 

British  Columbia,  312. 

British  Socialist  Party,  292. 

Britons,  104. 

Brook  Farm,  256,  292. 

Brookline,  36. 

Brousse,  Paul,  277. 

Brussels,  257,  263. 

Buecher,  Karl,  91. 

Bulgaria,  312. 

Bureaucracy,  239,  359. 

Burns,  John,  286-287. 

Burrows,  Herbert,  286. 


Cabet,  Etienne,  191,  197,  256,  257, 

275. 

Cabot,  John,  86. 
Cambria  Steel  Company,  169. 
Campanella,  Tomasso,  190. 
Canada,  312. 


Canals,  215,  216,  237. 

Capital,  nature  of,  145. 

Capital  (Marx),  162  n.;  writing  of, 
258;  quoted,  7,  118,  128,  144  n., 
153,  157. 

Capitalism,  gains  under,  13;  stages 
of,  157. 

Capitalist  class,  8,  104,  107-108, 
111-113. 

Carey,  Henry  C.,  124  n. 

Carpenter,  Edward,  286. 

Cartwright,  Edmund,  94,  195. 

Celibacy,  241-242. 

Charles  I.  of  England,   190. 

Charles  II.  of  England,  191. 

Charities  and  the  Commons,  41  n., 
42  n. 

Charity,  41,  216. 

Chartism,  255,  285. 

Chernyschefsky,  Nicholas,  301,  302. 

Child  labor,  in  England,  95,  236; 
poverty  and,  37;  prevention  of, 
39,  216;  Socialist  parties  on,  342; 
and  vice,  247. 

Chili,  312. 

China,  312. 

Christianity,  188,  202,  241-242,  243, 
244. 

Christian  Socialist  Party,  280. 

Cicero,  205. 

City  of  the  Sun,  The,  190. 

Civilization,  72-74. 

Civil  War,  American,  87,  97. 

Clan,  The,  69-70. 

Clark,  C.  C.,  quoted,  170. 

Class,  Definition  of,  102. 

CLASS  DIVISIONS:  Antiquity  of, 
103;  character  of,  8-10,  104;  econ- 
omists on,  105;  St.  Simon  on, 
191;  Socialist  ideal  and,  205,  207; 
and  reform  program,  323. 

Class  Struggle  theory,  The,  100  et 
seq. 

Class   consciousness,  110. 

Classes  and  Masses  (Mallock),  102. 

Clemenceau,  Georges,  279. 

Coats,  J.  &  P.,  Company,  174. 

Code  de  la  Nature  (Morelly),  191. 

Coercion,  217-218. 

Colchester,  181. 

Collective  ownership,  348,  352. 


INDEX 


373 


Collectivism  (Vandervelde),  350  n. 

Columbus,    86. 

Commodity,  definition  of,  119. 

Common  Sense  of  the  Milk  Question, 
The  (Spargo),  15  n. 

Commonweal,  The,  287. 

Commune,  the  Paris,  276,  285. 

COMMUNISM:  Primitive,  70,  92;  and 
Socialism,  259;  among  early 
Christians,  188;  in  Athens,  187 ;  of 
Campanella,  190;  of  Owen,  195; 
sex,  242-244. 

Communist  League,  256,  260,  261. 

Communist  Manifesto,  publication 
of,  63,  258;  and  the  Communist 
League,  256;  description  of,  258- 
259;  draft  of,  258;  and  the  Inter- 
national, 261;  ideal  of,  202;  crit- 
icism of,  by  Bernstein,  108-109; 
on  reform,  317;  on  degradation  of 
•workers,  317-318;  program  in, 
322;  on  taxation,  348;  on  capi- 
talism, 13  n.;  quoted,  100,  226, 
248,  317-318. 

Compensation,  348,  349,  350-351. 

Competition,  19  et  seq.,  349-350. 

Comrade,  The,  310  n. 

Confiscation,  348,  349-350. 

Conquest  of  Bread,  The  (Kropotkin) , 
218  n. 

Conservation  of  natural  resources, 
352. 

Contribution  to  the  Critique  of  Polit- 
ical Economy,   A    (Marx),   258; 
quoted,  77,  78. 

Cooperation,  229,  231,  282,  325,  326. 

Copenhagen,  Congress  at,  263,  290, 
312. 

Costa,  Andrea,  283. 

Courts  in  the  United  States,  113. 

Crane,  Walter,  291. 

Credit,  monopoly  of,  237. 

Crime,  39,  216,  218. 

Crises,  25. 

Crompton,  Samuel,  94. 

D 

Da  Gama,  Vasco,  86. 
Dangerous  work,  235,  236. 
Darwin,  Charles,  19,  63,  258,  360. 


Debs,  E.  V.,  297. 

Decentralization,  352. 

De  Gallifet,  Gen.,  278. 

De  Leon,  Daniel,  296-297. 

Democracy,  217,  221. 

Democratic  Federation,  the,  286. 

Democratic  Party,  the,  335. 

De  Molinari,  275. 

Denmark,  307. 

De  Paepe,  Caesar,  282. 

DeviUe,  Gabriel,  276,  277. 

Devine,  Edward  T.,  quoted,  41,  42. 

De  Vries,  Hugo,  66. 

Die  Gleichheit,  274. 

Die  Heilige  Familie  (Marx),  77. 

Die  Republik  der  Arbeiter,  293. 

Die  Voraussetzungen  des  Sozialismus 
(Bernstein),  159  n.,  271. 

Direct  appropriation,  stage  of,  92. 

Direct  legislation,  338. 

Disagreeable  work,  235-236. 

Disease,  32-34,  40. 

Distilling  Company  of  America, 
The,  169. 

Distilling  and  Cattle  Feeding  Com- 
pany, The,  179. 

Divorce,  244-246. 

Documentary  History  of  American 
Industrial  Society,  327  n. 

Domestic  system,  the,  94,  111. 

Drainage,  215. 

Dreyfus  case,  278. 

Drysdale,  Charles  R.,  36. 


E 


Economic  Interpretation  of  History, 
The  (Seligman),  78  n. 

Economic  interpretation  of  history, 
The,  64,  76  et  seq. 

Economic  stages,  the,  91  et  seq. 

Edison,  Thomas  A.,  363. 

Education,  220,  352. 

Edwards,  Jonathan,  209. 

Egypt,  73. 

Eisenach,  Congress  at,  267. 

Eisenach  Party,  the,  267,  273,  331. 

Elements  of  Political  Economy  (Nich- 
olson), 119  n. 

Elliot's  Debates,  340  n. 


374 


INDEX 


Encyclopedia  of  Social  Reforms 
(Bliss),  40  n. 

Encyclopedists,  the,  275. 

ENGELS,  FREDERICK:  biographical, 
257-258;  and  the  Communist 
Manifesto,  259;  and  Germany, 
266;  and  the  Independent  Labor 
Party,  288;  and  Kautsky,  273; 
and  the  Social  Democratic  Feder- 
ation, 287;  quoted,  62-63,  78,  88, 
100,  213,  226,  248-250,  288,  317- 
318,  350. 

ENGLAND:  agricultural  stage  in,  93; 
and  Belgian  Socialism,  326;  class 
struggle  in,  255;  death  duties  in, 
165;  factory  legislation  in,  195; 
conditions  at  time  of  More,  189; 
combination  in,  174;  handicraft 
stage  in,  93;  industrial  revolution 
in,  94;  industrial  reform  in,  236; 
national  economy  in,  97;  pov- 
erty in,  31;  shareholders  in,  158; 
Socialism  in,  285-292;  trade 
unions  in,  326-328.  See  GREAT 
BRITAIN. 

England  for  All  (Hyndman),  286. 

Employers'  associations,  112,  233. 

Equality  of  opportunity,  207. 

Erfurt,  Congress  at,  269. 

Erfurt  program,  207,  320;  quoted, 
269. 

Erickson,  Dr.,  307. 

Ethics,  82. 

Eugenics,  241. 

Evolutionary  Socialism  (Bernstein), 
159  n.,  271. 

Exceptional  laws,  268. 


F 


Fabian  Society,  The,  289,  290-291, 
330,  350. 

Factory  inspection,  216,  342. 

Factory  legislation,  195,  197,  342- 
343. 

Factory  system,  95,  112. 

Fall  River,  36. 

False  Industry  and  its  Antidote  (Fou- 
rier), 192. 


Family,  The,  67,  68-69,  240-251. 

Farmer,  the,  under  Socialism,  227. 

Farmers'  program,  243. 

Farr,  William,  32. 

Federal  incorporation,  176. 

Ferrer,  Francisco,  310. 

Feudalism,  93,  104,  214. 

Finland,  264,  305-306,  347. 

Fisher,  Irving,  32. 

Forbes,  James,  34. 

FOURIER,    CHARLES:     his   life    and 

theories,     192-195;      and     Owen, 

197;    and  French  Socialism,  275; 

and  modern  Socialism,  61,  62,  63, 

201,  202. 
Fourierism,  description  of,  193-195; 

decline   of,    256;    in   the   United 

States,  292. 
France,  class  struggle  in,  255;    and 

Belgian  Socialism,  326;   Socialism 

in,  264,  275-279;  at  time  of  St. 

Simon,    191;     tobacco    monopoly 

in,  182. 

Franco-Prussian  War,  267. 
Frank,  Dr.,  271,  272. 
Franklin,  Benjamin,  124  n. 
"Free  love,"  240. 
Free  Soil  Party,  292. 
Free  will,  81. 
Fremont,  John  C.,  240. 
French  Revolution,  8,  191. 
French  Socialist  Party,  history,  276- 

279;  program,  340,  343,  345,  347. 
Fritzsche,  Wilhelm,  330. 


G 


Galicia,  311. 

Gary,  E.  H.,  176. 

Gates,  John  W.,  quoted,  170. 

General  Electric  Company,  365. 

General  German  Workingmen's  As- 
sociation, 294. 

General  strike,  284,  299;  in  Sweden, 
306. 

General  Workingmen's  Association, 
266,  267. 

George,  Henry,  286,  295,  348. 

Genesis,  92. 

Geneva,  262,  276,  309. 


INDEX 


375 


GERMAN  SOCIAL  DEMOCRACY:  his- 
tory, 267-274;  American  Social- 
ist Party  and,  299;  and  alcohol- 
ism, 346 ;  and  emancipation  of  the 
wage-workers,  207;  as  peace  or- 
ganization, 203;  and  public 
health,  345;  and  social  insurance, 
344;  tactics  and  program,  319- 
324;  and  taxation,  347;  and 
trade  unions,  330-332. 

German  Workingmen's  Club,  257. 

GERMANY:  and  Austria,  279-280; 
and  Belgian  Socialism,  326;  sec- 
ond ballot  in,  339;  shareholders 
in,  159;  Socialism  in,  264,  266- 
275. 

Gerry,  Elbridge  T.,  246  n. 

Ghent,  cooperatives  at,  282. 

Giddings,  F.  H.,  quoted,  66,  67,  235. 

Gladstone,  W.  E.,  285. 

Glasgow,  181. 

Gotha,  Congress  at,  267,  268,  269. 

Gotha  Program,  quoted,  268. 

Gothenburg  system,  347. 

"Graft,"  181,  355-358. 

GREAT  BRITAIN:  cooperation  in, 
325;  Chartism  in,  255;  public 
ownership  in,  180,  181,  348;  So- 
cialism in,  285-292.  See  ENG- 
LAND. 

Great  man  theory,  76,  85. 

Great  plague,  189. 

Greece,  47,  73,  312 

Greek  household,  96. 

Greeley,  Horace,  292. 

Greenback  Party,  294. 

Grutliverein,  309. 

Guaranties  of  Harmony  and  Freedom, 
The  (Weitling),  256. 

Guesde,  Jules,  267,  268,  269,  351. 

Guilds,  93-94,  214. 

Guizot,  77. 

H 

Hammurabi,  Code  of,  93. 
Handicraft  stage,  93. 
Hardie,  J.  Keir,  288,  289. 
Hargreaves,  James,  86,  94. 
Harriman,  Job,  297. 
Harrington,  James,  190. 


Health,  public,  344-345. 

Hebrew  Patriarchs,  92. 

Hegel,  77. 

Heine,  Heinrich,  257. 

Henry  VIII.  of  England,  188. 

Herzen,  Alexander,  301,  302. 

Hillquit,  Morris,  301. 

History  of  Trade  Unionism  (Webb), 

326  n.,  327  n. 
Holding  company,  172. 
Holland,  308,  309. 
Holt,  Hamilton,  204  n. 
Homeric  Poems,  72. 
Hours  of  labor,  342-343. 
Household  economy,  96. 
Howells,  William  Dean,  199. 
Human  nature,  367-368. 
Hungary,  311. 
Hunter,  Robert,  32,  46  n. 
Huysmans,  Camille,  282. 
Hyndman,  Henry  M.,  286,  287. 


Iglesias,  Pablo,  310. 
Impossibilists,  277. 
Incentive,  362-365. 
Income  taxation,  347. 
Independent  Labor  Party,  287-290, 

338,  346. 
India,  86. 
Indiana,  195. 

Indians,  American,  70,  72. 
Individualism,  53  et  seq,  209,  239. 
Industrial  revolution,  the,  94,  221. 
Industrial  stage,  the,  95. 
Industry,  direction  of,  233. 
Infant  schools,  196. 
Inheritance,  45 ;  taxes,  347. 
Initiative  and  Referendum,  338. 
Injunctions,  114,  342. 
Inquiry  into  the  Nature  and  Origin  of 

Public  Wealth  (Lauderdale) ,  136  n. 
Insurance,  23;  social,  216,  342-344. 
Intercollegiate  Socialist  Society,  301. 
Integralists,  284. 
International  Alliance,  256,  257. 
International  relations,  219. 
International  Socialist  Bureau,  263, 

282,  290. 


376 


INDEX 


INTERNATIONAL  WORKINGMEN'S  AS- 
SOCIATION: history,  261-263;  in 
America,  294;  in  Belgium,  282; 
in  Denmark,  307;  in  England, 
285;  in  France,  275;  reform  pro- 
gram, 317-323;  and  trade  unions, 
327;  and  war,  205. 

Internationalism,  202. 

Interstate  Commerce  Act,  215. 

Invention,  364-365. 

Ireland,  69. 

Irish  Land  League,  285. 

"Iron  Law  of  Wages,"  14,  147,  268. 

Iroquois  Confederacy,  70. 

Irrigation,  215. 

Israelites,  70,  80. 

Italian  Socialist  Party,  283-284,  345. 

ITALY:  public  ownership  in,  182; 
Mazzini  in,  256;  Socialism  in, 
283-285. 


Jahve,  80. 

Japan,  182, 312. 

Jaures,  Jean,  8,  277,  278,  279. 

Jedrzejowski,  B.  A.,  quoted,  310. 

Jena,  Congress  at,  271  n.,  274  n. 

Jenks,  J.  W.,  179. 

Jesuits,   in  Paraguay,  190. 

Jesus,  188,  192. 

Jevons,  W.  S.,   133;    quoted,   135- 

136;   138. 
Jowett,  Prof.,  241. 
Judges,  election  of,  341. 
Judicial  veto,  113,  341. 
Jukes,  the,  209. 
Justice,  administration  of,  219-220, 

340-341. 

Justice  (London),  287. 
Juvenile  movement,  274,  300-301. 


K 


Kant,  Immanuel,  205. 

Karl  Marx,  his  Life  and  Work  (Spar- 
go),  331  n. 

Katayama,  Sen,  312. 

Kautsky,  Karl,  273;  quoted,  147, 
161,  351-352. 

Kay,  John,  94. 

Kelly,  Edmond,  238. 


Kentucky,  tobacco  planters  in,  28. 
Kingdom  of  Heaven,  the,  188. 
Knights  of  Labor,  295,  328. 
Kolokol,  302. 

Kropotkin,  Peter,  20,  218. 
Kuyper,  Dr.,  309. 


Labor,  meaning  of,  128;  abstract, 
128. 

Labor  checks,  238. 

Labor  Party,  the,  289-290. 

Labor  power,  146  et  seq. 

Labor  Problems  (Adams  &  Sumner), 
26  n. 

Labor  Representation  Committee, 
288,  289. 

Labriola,  Arturo,  284. 

Lafargue,  Paul,  277. 

Lammenais,  quoted,  206. 

Lancashire,  98. 

Land,  238. 

LASALLE,  FEHDINAND:  biographical, 
266-267;  and  Iron  Law  of  Wages, 
14,  147;  and  Hungary,  311. 

Lasallean  Socialism,  266,  268,  320. 

Lauderdale,  Lord,  135. 

Lavroff,  Peter,  302. 

Law,  22,  84. 

League  of  the  Just,  256. 

Ledebour,  George,  274. 

L'Egalite,  276. 

Legien,  Karl.  274. 

Leisure  and  Luxury,  44  et  seq. 

L'Humaniti,  278. 

Liberty,  under  Socialism,  218;  of 
occupation,  235. 

Liebknecht,  Karl,  274. 

Liebknecht,  Wilhelm,  biographical, 
273,  274;  and  Eisenach  Party, 
267;  quoted,  110,  212,  319,  320, 
351. 

L' Industrie  (St.  Simon),  191. 

Lipton's,  158. 

Lockout,  the,  113. 

London,  founding  of  International 
at,  261;  provisioning  of,  19;  So- 
cialist Congress  at,  263 ;  universal 
exhibition  at,  261 ;  work  of  Booth 
in,  32. 


INDEX 


377 


Looking  Backward   (Bellamy),   198, 

293. 

Louis  Philippe,  255,  260. 
Luther,  Martin,  80,  240,  273. 
Luxemburg,  Rosa,  274. 
Luxury,  social  effect  of,  60. 

M 

Mably,  275. 

Madison,  James,  quoted,  340 

Magdeburg,  Congress  at,  271. 

Maison  du  Peuple,  282. 

Mallock,  W.  H.,  102;  quoted,  128. 

Malloney,  Jos.  F.,  297. 

Malon,  Benolt,  277. 

Manchester  Canal,  158. 

Mann,  Tom,  286,  287. 

Manorial  Economy,  93. 

Marriage,  240  et  seq. 

Marshall,  John,  341. 

Marx,  Heinrich,  257. 

MARX,  KARL:  biographical,  257- 
259;  and  the  Communist  Mani- 
festo, 258;  and  St.  Simon,  62,  191; 
and  the  International,  261,  263; 
and  Germany,  266;  first  declared 
Socialist,  275;  protest  against 
Gotha  program,  268;  and  Lieb- 
knecht,  273;  influence  of,  61;  his 
philosophical  synthesis,  63;  his 
sociological  viewpoint,  118;  and 
economic  interpretation  of  history, 
76-79,  88;  and  theory  of  value, 
116-119;  on  Social  Reform,  317- 
318;  on  tactics,  322-323;  on 
unionism,  327-331;  on  means  of 
socialization,  350;  quoted,  7,  12, 
13,  76-77,  107,  118,  128,  144  n., 
157,  206,  226,  248. 

Massachusetts,  297-298. 

Matchett,  Charles  H.,  295. 

Materialistic  conception  of  history, 
76.  See  Economic  Interpretation 
of  History. 

Mayas,  the,  72. 

Mazzini,  Guiseppe,  256,  261,  286. 

Menger,  Anton,  133. 

Meunier,  367. 

Mexican  War,  86. 

Mexico,  Indians  of,  72. 


Middle  class,  the,  10,  108-109. 

Militarism,  22,  203-205. 

Mill,  John  Stuart,  quoted,  82,  106, 

124. 

Millerand,  Etienne,  277,  278. 
Millet,  Jean  Francois,  367. 
Milwaukee,  298. 
Mir,  71. 
Misery    and    its    Causes    (Devine), 

quoted,  41. 

Modern  Socialism.  (Ensor),  350  n. 
Molkenbuhr,  Herman,  274. 
Mommsen,  Theodor,  203. 
Money,  131,  237-238. 
Monopoly,  26,28, 118  et  seq.  ;=price, 

138. 

More,  Sir  Thomas,  188,  198,  199. 
Morelly,  191,  212,  275. 
Morgan,  Lewis  H.,  70,  71. 
Morris,  William,  198,  243,  286,  287, 

366. 

Mosaic  Law,  93. 
Most,  John,  295. 
Municipal  autonomy,  352. 
Mutation  theory,  the,  66,  221. 

N 

Napoleon,  85. 

National  Economy,  97. 

National  workshops,  255. 

New  Atlantis  (Bacon),  190. 

New  Harmony,  62,  195. 

New  Industrial  World  (Fourier),  192. 

New  International,  the,  263. 

New  Lanark,  195,  196. 

New  York,  State,  70;  City,  81,  246, 
263,  294. 

New  York  Times,  204  n. 

New  York  Tribune,  292. 

New  Zealand,  182. 

News  from  Nowhere  (Morris) ,  198. 

Nicholson,  J.  S.,  119. 

Nieuwenhuis,  Domela,  203,  308. 

Nihilism,  302. 

Normans,  104. 

Norse  Sagas,  72. 

North  American  Review,  179  n. 

Norway,  307,  346. 

Nouveau  Christianisme,  Le  (St.  Si- 
mon), 191. 


378 


INDEX 


O'Brien,  Bronterre,  286. 

Oceana,  190. 

Old  age,  poverty  and,  38;  pensions, 
342,  344. 

Olivier,  Sidney,  291 

Opportunism,  299,  318-319,  323. 

Origin  of  Species,  The,  358. 

Origin  of  the  Family,  Private  Prop- 
erty, and  the  State,  The  (Engels), 
249,  250. 

Over-production,  24. 

OWEN,  ROBEBT,  61-62,  191,  195, 
199,  259. 

Owenism,  256,  285. 


Panama  Canal,  215,  237. 

Paraguay,  190. 

Parcels  Post,  215. 

Paris,  Congress  at,  263;   Commune, 

276,  285. 

Pastoral  stage,  92. 
Paul,  quoted,  210. 
Pauperism,  34,  35,  36. 
Peasants'  Revolt,  189. 
Pennsylvania  Railroad,  162. 
People,  The,  296. 
Perfectionists,  the,  241. 
Perovskaia,  Sophia,  303. 
Persia,  86,  312. 
Peru,  72. 

Petty,  Sir  William,  quoted,  123. 
Phalanx,  the,  193.     See  Fourier. 
Phelps,  Edward  Bunnell,  32. 
Philanthropy,  56. 
Plato,  187,  240,  241. 
Poland,  280,  310-311. 
Political  corruption,  181,  357-358. 
Pool,  the,  172. 
Populist  Party,  294. 
Portugal,  312. 
Possibilists,  277. 
Postal  Savings  Banks,  215. 
Poverty  (Hunter),  27  n.,  46  n. 
Poverty,  30-43. 
Preferential  Ballot,  340. 


Present  Distribution  of  Wealth  in  the 
United  States,  The  (Spahr),  165  n., 
166  n. 

Price,  130  et  seq. 

Principles  of  Economics  (Seligman), 
134  n. 

Principles  of  Political  Economy 
(Carey),  124  n. 

Principles  of  Political  Economy  (J. 
S.  Mill),  106  n.,  124  n. 

Principles  of  Political  Economy  and 
Taxation  (Ricardo),  124. 

Principles  of  Sociology  (Giddings), 
67  n. 

Principles  of  Sociology  (Spencer) ,  10. 

Private  industry,  under  Socialism, 
227-231. 

Private  property,  68,  70,  71;  under 
Socialism,  221,  224,  227. 

Progress  and  Poverty  (George) ,  286. 

Proletariat,  the,  9,  109,  114. 

Proportional  Representation,  338- 
339. 

Prostitution,  40,  246-247. 

Protection  of  workers,  318,  342. 

Protestant  Revolt,  80,  87,  240,  244. 

Proudhon,  Pierre  J.,  257,  262,  275. 

Prussia,  incomes  in,  158;  Lasalle 
Association  in,  266,  267;  manu- 
facturing establishments  in,  159; 
and  Poland,  310;  State  Socialism 
in,  182.  See  GERMANY. 

Public  Health,  344-345. 

Public  ownership,  extent  of,  180- 
183;  and  "Graft,"  355-358;  in- 
crease of,  215-216;  methods  of  ac- 
quiring, 348-352;  under  Social- 
ism, 224,  227. 


Q 


Quarterly  Journal  of  Economics,  61  n. 


R 


Radical  Socialist  Party,  279. 
Rand  School  of  Social  Science,  301. 
Recall,  the,  338. 
"Red"  unions,  273. 
Referendum,  the,  338,  340. 


INDEX 


379 


Reform  Bill  of  1832,  255. 

Reformists,  284. 

Religion,  economic  interpretation  of 
history  and,  79;  and  marriage, 
241;  and  prostitution,  246;  ori- 
gins of,  68;  and  Socialism,  360- 
362. 

Remarks  and  Facts  Relative  to  the 
American  Paper  Money  (Frank- 
lin), 124  n. 

Remmel,  Val.,  297. 

Remuneration  of  Labor,  233,  235. 

Rent,  238. 

Report  of  the  United  States  Industrial 
Commission,  169  n.,  170  n. 

Report  on  National  Vitality  (Fisher), 
32  n.,  34  n. 

Republic,  The,  of  Plato,  187,  190, 
240,  241  n. 

Republican  Party,  240. 

Restraint  of  Trade,  174. 

Revisionism,  and  the  Class  Struggle 
Theory,  108;  and  economic  inter- 
pretation of  history,  88;  Fabian 
Society  and,  291;  in  Germany, 
271-272;  and  theory  of  concen- 
tration, 158. 

Revolution,  American,  86. 

Revolution  of  1848,  259-260. 

Revolutionism,  318-319,  323. 

Ricardo,  David,  quoted,  123,  125, 
147. 

Road  to  Power,  The  (Kautsky),  147  n. 

Roman  Catholicism,  80,  244,  246, 
307. 

Roman  Empire,  80. 

Rousseau,  Jean  Jacques,  275. 

Rowntree,  B.  S.,  31. 

Ruskin,  John,  55. 

Russia,  Socialism  in,  301-305;  and 
Finland,  305-306;  and  Poland, 
310-311. 

Ruthenians,  280. 


S 


Saint-Simon,  biographical,  191-192; 
and  French  Socialism,  275;  and 
Fourier,  192;  and  Socialist  The- 
ory, 61. 

Saint-Simonism,  191-192,  256. 


Sanial.'Lucien,  160,  296. 

Sanitation,  216. 

Sassulich,  Vera,  302. 

Savagery,  71. 

Saxons,  104. 

Saxony,  267. 

Science,  219. 

Scotland,  clan  system  in,  69. 

Second  Ballot,  the,  338-339. 

Seligman,  E.  R.  A.,  quoted,  134. 

Senate,  abolition  of,  340. 

Servant,  the,  and  Society,  48-49. 

Servia,  312. 

Shakers,  the,  241. 

Shaw,  G.  Bernard,  290. 

Sherman  Anti-Trust  Act,  85,  175. 

Single  Tax,  the,  294,  348. 

Slavery,  beginning  of,  92,   103;    in 

Greece,  47,  73. 

Smith,  Adam,  16;  quoted,  105,  123. 
Social  Classes,  8-10,  100  et  seq. 
Social  Democracy  of  America,    293, 

297. 
Social  Democratic  Federation,  286, 

287,  290,  292. 
Social     Democratic     Labor     Party 

(Holland),  308-309. 
Social  Democratic  Party  (Austria), 

280. 
Social  Democratic  Party  (Denmark), 

307. 
Social  Democratic  Party  (Finland), 

305-306. 
Social  Democratic  Party  (Germany) , 

268-274.     See  German  Social  De- 
mocracy. 
Social     Democratic     Party     (Great 

Britain),  290,  291,  292,  338,  340. 
Social  Democratic  Party  (Holland), 

308. 
Social  Democratic  Party  (Norway), 

307. 
Social  Democratic  Party   (Russia), 

303,  304. 
Social  Democratic  Party   (Sweden), 

306-307. 

Social  Democratic    Party   (Switzer- 
land), 309. 

Social  Demokraten,  307. 
Social  Evolution,  65-73,  213,  222. 
Social  mind,  the,  67. 


380 


INDEX 


Social  Party  of  New  York  and  vi- 
cinity, 294. 

Social  Reform,  317-335. 

Social  Revolution,  The  (Kaustky), 
161  n. 

"Social  Workshops,"  255. 

SOCIALISM:  and  Anarchism,  358— 
359;  and  Art,  366-367;  and  bu- 
reaucracy, 359-360;  and  Com- 
munism, 259;  and  the  family, 
240-251;  definition  of,  5;  essen- 
tial principle  of,  224-225;  and 
incentive,  362—365;  and  human 
nature,  367-368;  and  Karl  Marx, 
61;  numerical  strength,  4,  264; 
and  the  principle  of  evolution,  65; 
and  religion,  360-362;  -scientific, 
64;  and  State  regulation,  176; 
and  trade  unionism,  326-327. 

Socialism  (Mallock),  128  n. 

Socialism  before  the  French  Revolu- 
tion (Guthrie),  189  n. 

Socialism  Inevitable  (Wilshire),  161 
n. 

Socialism,  its  Growth  and  Outcome 
(Morris  &  Bax),  243. 

Socialism,  Utopian  and  Scientific 
(Engels),  214  n. 

Socialist  Labor  Party  (Spain),  310. 

Socialist  Labor  Party  (United 
States),  history,  294-296;  and 
trade  unions,  328-330;  program, 
332. 

Socialist  League,  287. 

Socialist  Party  (France).  See  French 
Socialist  Party. 

Socialist  Party  (British),  292. 

Socialist  Party  (Italy),  283-284,  345. 

SOCIALIST  PARTY  (United  States): 
history,  297-300 ;  and  Democratic 
Party,  332;  Farmers'  program, 
343;  and  alcoholism,  346;  and 
hours  of  labor,  343;  and  the  judi- 
ciary 341;  program,  337;  and 
public  health,  345;  and  reform, 
332;  and  social  insurance,  344; 
and  taxation,  347;  and  trade 
unions,  330. 

Socialist  Revolutionary  Party  (Rus- 
sia), 303,  304,  305. 

Socialist  Sunday  Schools,  300,  301. 


Socialist  Trade  and  Labor  Alliance, 
296,  329. 

Socialists,  The,  Who  They  Are  and 
What  They  Stand  For  (Spargo), 
358  n. 

Socialization,  means  of,  348,  352. 

Sociology,  Principles  of  (Giddings), 
67  n. 

Sociology,  Principles  of  (Spencer), 
quoted,  10. 

South  Africa,  312. 

South  America,  96,  312. 

South  Carolina,  245. 

Sozial  Demokrat,  269. 

Sozialistische  Akademiker,  78  n. 

Spahr,  Charles  B.,  165,  166. 

Spain,  310. 

Spanish  American  War,  87,  310. 

Spence,  Thomas,  286. 

Spencer,  Herbert,  63;  quoted,  10. 

Standard  of  Life,  15. 

Standard  Oil  Company,  168,  172, 
175,  178. 

State  Socialism,  182. 

Statute  of  Laborers,  189. 

Steffens,  Lincoln,  357. 

Strike,  the,  112,  113. 

Students'  Circles,  276. 

Studies  in  Socialism  (Jaurfes),  261, 
351  n. 

Stuttgart,  Congress  at,  263. 

Sudekum,  Albert,  274. 

Suffrage,  Equal,  334,  337. 

Surplus-Value,  148,  155. 

Sweden,  cedes  Finland,  305;  pro- 
portional representation  in,  339; 
public  ownership  in,  182;  Social- 
ism in,  306-307. 

Switzerland,  182,  309. 

Syndicalism,  284,  299,  308. 


Taff  Vale  Decision,  288. 
Taft,  Wm.  H.,  176. 
Taxation,  216,  347-348. 
Taylor,  Helen,  286. 
Temperance  problem,  345-347. 


INDEX 


381 


Terrorism,  302,  303-304. 

Theory  of  the  Four  Movements,  The 
(Fourier),  192. 

Theory   of  Political   Economy,    The 
(Jevons),  135  n.,  136  n.,  138  n. 

Thorne,  William,  290. 

Town  Economy,  97. 

TRADE  UNIONS:  in  the  Class  Strug- 
gle, 111-112;  and  direction  of  in- 
dustry, 233 ;  freedom  of  combina- 
tion, 342;  and  Socialism,  326-330; 
in  Germany,  272-273;  in  Eng- 
land, 287-290;  in  Hungary,  311; 
in  France,  376 ;  in  Russia,  303 ;  in 
Spain,  310;  in  the  United  States, 
295,  299. 

Trade  Unionism,  History  of  (Webb), 
326  n.,  327  n. 

Transitional  State,  the,  221. 

Traveller  from  Altruria,  A  (Howells), 
199. 

Treatise  on  Domestic  and  Agricultural 
Association  (Fourier),  192. 

Treatise  on  Taxes  and  Constitutions 
(Petty),  123  n. 

Trepoff,  Gen.,  302. 

Tribe,  the,  70. 

Troelstra,  Pieter  J.,  308. 

Trust,  the,  172. 

Trusts  of  To-day  (Montague),  169  n. 

Turati,  Philip,  284. 

Turkey,  86,  312. 

Turnvereine,  293. 

Twentieth  Century  Socialism  (Kelly), 
238  n. 


Unemployment,  27,  342. 

United  Labor  Party,  295. 

UNITED  STATES:  Department  of 
Agriculture,  365;  public  owner- 
ship in,  180;  Socialism  in,  264, 
292-301,  328-330;  trade  unions 
in,  327,  328-330;  wars  of,  86. 

United  States  Steel  Corporation,  169, 
170,  171,  173,  176. 

Utopia,  The  (More),  188-190,  198. 

Utopian  experiments,  194-195,  292- 
293. 


Vaillant,  Eduard,  278. 
Value,  116  et  seq.,  234. 
Value,  Price  and  Profit  (Marx),  137 

n.,  147  n. 
Vandervelde,      Emile,      282,      326, 

346. 

Van  Kol,  Henry  H.,  308. 
Veblen,  Thorstein,  quoted,  61. 
Verestchagin,  V.  V.,  204. 
Vice,  247. 
Violence,  113,  216. 
Vital  Statistics  (Fair),  32  n. 
Viviani,  279. 
Volders,  Jean,  282. 
Volkstribun,  2,  93. 
Von  VoUmar,  320,  323. 
Vooruit,  282. 
Voyage  en  Icarie  (Cabet),  197-198. 


W 

Wage  Slavery,  9-10. 

Wages,  14,  147-150,  234-235. 

Waldeck-Rousseau,  278. 

Waldenses,  the,  241. 

Wallace,  Alfred  Russell,  63,  360. 

War,  203-205. 

Watt,  James,  195. 

Wealth,  advantages  of,  45-46;  con- 
centration of,  164-166. 

Wealth  of  Nations  (Smith),  15  n.J 
106  n.,  123  n. 

Webb,  Sidney,  291. 

Webb,  Mrs.  Sidney,  291. 

Weitling,  Wilhelm,  256,  258,  293. 

Wells,  H.  G.,  199. 

"Whisky  Trust,"  169,  170,  179. 

Whitney,  Eh',  94. 

Wing,  Simon,  295. 

Wisconsin,  Phalanx,  292;  Socialism 
in,  297-298. 

Wolff,  Wilhelm,  257,  258. 

Woman  Labor,  216,  236,  343. 

Woman  Suffrage,  334,  337. 

Woman  under  Socialism  (Bebel), 
241  n.,  243. 


382 


INDEX 


Women 's  Movement,  American, 
300;  German,  274;  Finnish,  306; 
International,  263. 

Working  Men's  Association,  255. 

Workingmen's  Party  of  the  United 
States,  294. 

World  as  It  Is  and  as  It  Might  Be, 

The  (Weitling),  256. 
World  economy,  97. 
Wright,  Carroll  D.,  244. 


"Yellow"  unions,  273. 

York,  31. 

Young  Europe  Association,  256. 

Young  Germany  Society,  256. 

Young  Italy,  256. 

Yucatan,  Mayas  of,  72. 


Zetkin,  Clara,  274,  321,  323. 


r*HE   following   pages   advertise  some    of   the  Macmillan 
J.  publications  on  socialism 


BOOKS  BY  JOHN  SPARGO 
Socialism 

A  Summary  and  Interpretation  of  Socialist  Principles 

12010,  cloth,  $1.25  net. 

"The  'man  in  the  street'  will  find  this  little  volume  an  up-to-date 
exposition  of  the  socialism  that  is  alive  in  the  world  to-day." 

— Review  of  Reviews. 

"Anything  of  Mr.  Spargo's  is  well  worth  reading,  for  it  is  written 
with  conviction  and  with  a  sense  of  concrete  life  far  removed  from  mere 
doctrinarianism.  .  .  .  Anybody  who  wants  to  know  exactly  what  the 
American  Marxian  of  the  saner  sort  is  aiming  at  will  find  it  here.  In 
view  of  the  present  situation  it  is  a  book  that  every  thoughtful  person 
will  want  to  read  and  read  carefully." — World  To- Day. 

The  Bitter  Cry  of  the  Children 

i2mo,  cloth,  $1.50  net. 

"  The  book  will  live  and  will  set  hundreds  of  teachers  and  social 
workers  and  philanthropists  to  work  in  villages  and  cities  throughout  the 
country.  .  .  .  Whatever  our  feeling  as  to  the  remedy  for  starved  and 
half-starved  children,  we  are  grateful  for  the  vivid,  scholarly  way  in 
which  this  book  marshals  the  experience  of  two  continents  in  awaking 
to  the  physical  needs  of  the  children  who  are  compelled  to  be  in  school 
though  unfit  for  schooling.  .  .  .  School  teachers  need  this  book,  social 
workers,  librarians,  pastors,  editors,  all  who  want  to  understand  the 
problem  of  poverty  or  education." — WILLIAM  H.  ALLEN  in  The  Annals 
of  the  American  Academy. 

The  Common  Sense  of  the  Milk  Question 

Illustrated.    Cloth,  i2mo,  $1.50  net. 

"It  is  a  calm  and  studiously  moderate  statement  of  fact  to  say  that 
dirt  and  disease  germs  are  fed  to  the  vast  majority  of  bottle-fed  babies 
in  this  country.  This  contamination  is  due  simply  to  human  ignorance 
or  carelessness.  The  book  takes  up  in  detail  the  various  errors,  notes 
what  they  are,  and  how  they  may  be  remedied.  ...  It  ought  to  be  in 
every  man's  hands,  for  it  states  plainly  and  simply  just  what  the  prob- 
lems are  and  just  what  are  the  elements  to  their  solution." 

— The  Boston  Transcript. 


PUBLISHED  BY 

THE  MACMILLAN  COMPANY 

64-66  FIFTH  AVENUE,  NEW  YORK 


/HI  HI  I II 


3  115801045  1515 


i.r.    ?,?.U.™.!.  N  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 


"••I  •»•!  •INI  HIM  III  |  III      II 

A     000105540     9 


